ChatterBank0 min ago
Prisoners and the vote (again).
I posted a Q yesterday about the absurdity of allowing prisoners the vote and was gobsmacked to discover that of those that replied the majority felt that they should be allowed to vote as they should be involved in the democratic process.
Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors?
Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i take you point about prisoners priveliges being revoked - thats understood and part of their punishment.
but I doubt the lack of voting rights matters a jot to most of them - i expect its very low on their list of hardships.
when you are locked in a 10ft cell, having to crap in metal bog in corner of the room, eat slop and cannot leave or see your family whenever you want, and risk being ******** or slashed almost daily - i seriously doubt that the issue of whether or not you can vote crosses your mind all that often...
my point being - it makes no difference one way or the other, to us - or them.
but I doubt the lack of voting rights matters a jot to most of them - i expect its very low on their list of hardships.
when you are locked in a 10ft cell, having to crap in metal bog in corner of the room, eat slop and cannot leave or see your family whenever you want, and risk being ******** or slashed almost daily - i seriously doubt that the issue of whether or not you can vote crosses your mind all that often...
my point being - it makes no difference one way or the other, to us - or them.
Surely someone like a GP would be an excellent person to serve on a jury. A doctor, trustworthy, loyal, honest.
Harold Shipman was a GP and fine upstanding member of society, so would have been a perfect jury member.
Little did people know he was killing old people by poisening them, over 200, a fact that did not come out till he was over 50 years old.
Just because you ARE NOT in prison does not make you any more level headed than someone who IS in prison.
Harold Shipman was a GP and fine upstanding member of society, so would have been a perfect jury member.
Little did people know he was killing old people by poisening them, over 200, a fact that did not come out till he was over 50 years old.
Just because you ARE NOT in prison does not make you any more level headed than someone who IS in prison.
Oh sod it - anybody who is ever sentenced to a custodial should be feted by the hand wringing idiots that seem to frequent this site. These people have committed a crime for which they have been sent away for christs sake - bloody hell, the way some of you people are posting you'd think the criminals in our society are the victims. They are not. I can't wait for some meat head to come on and say "society is to blame" - no, it is not - the people that commit the crimes are to blame for their crimes. Period.
I was in a good mood when I woke up this morning but reading some of the ridiculous comments on this thread this morning has really got right on my tits.
Well let's look forward to the day when Nielson, Huntley, West, Noye etc etc etc etc are entitled to be in the process of deciding who rules us.
You dimwitted bunterish simpletons.
I was in a good mood when I woke up this morning but reading some of the ridiculous comments on this thread this morning has really got right on my tits.
Well let's look forward to the day when Nielson, Huntley, West, Noye etc etc etc etc are entitled to be in the process of deciding who rules us.
You dimwitted bunterish simpletons.
I can quite understand your frustration, flip-flop.
I know we�re straying considerably from your original question now and I�m (once again) breaking my �firm� rule of only dealing in matters of fact, not of opinion. Sometimes, though, I just can�t help it.
In a civilised society the citizens give up the right to punish others who act towards them in an unacceptable way. They do this on the understanding that the State will act on their behalf and punish the wrongdoer accordingly.
For this �deal� to work successfully there has to be a balance which is acceptable to the majority. The balance must ensure that the rights of the victims to see appropriate punishment extracted on their behalf are met, whilst the perpetrators are treated in a fair, just but firm manner.
There is no doubt that this vital balance has, in many respects, been lost in this country. The evidence which supports this is so great that it is not worth going into here. Suffice it to say that much of the population has little or no confidence that the police will prevent or detect the sort of crimes that they are most fearful of falling victim to. They have little faith that perpetrators, if caught, will receive appropriate punishment. They have even less faith that the rights of victims will take precedence over the rights of criminals.
However, as soon as anyone dares suggest that this balance has been lost, all the usual suspects (and I�m not just talking about those on AB) rear their heads. People who make perfectly justified and salient points for debate are vilified. Distortions quickly ensue, as we�ve seen here in what started as a perfectly well reasoned debate.
(Continued)
I know we�re straying considerably from your original question now and I�m (once again) breaking my �firm� rule of only dealing in matters of fact, not of opinion. Sometimes, though, I just can�t help it.
In a civilised society the citizens give up the right to punish others who act towards them in an unacceptable way. They do this on the understanding that the State will act on their behalf and punish the wrongdoer accordingly.
For this �deal� to work successfully there has to be a balance which is acceptable to the majority. The balance must ensure that the rights of the victims to see appropriate punishment extracted on their behalf are met, whilst the perpetrators are treated in a fair, just but firm manner.
There is no doubt that this vital balance has, in many respects, been lost in this country. The evidence which supports this is so great that it is not worth going into here. Suffice it to say that much of the population has little or no confidence that the police will prevent or detect the sort of crimes that they are most fearful of falling victim to. They have little faith that perpetrators, if caught, will receive appropriate punishment. They have even less faith that the rights of victims will take precedence over the rights of criminals.
However, as soon as anyone dares suggest that this balance has been lost, all the usual suspects (and I�m not just talking about those on AB) rear their heads. People who make perfectly justified and salient points for debate are vilified. Distortions quickly ensue, as we�ve seen here in what started as a perfectly well reasoned debate.
(Continued)
(Part Two)
It started with a perfectly sound hypothesis, suggesting that laws and traditions that have been in force for some time, and for which there might just be sound bases, were in danger of being swept away without proper consideration. It swiftly moves on until it is suggested that, as a result of your views, you might like to see ageing Council Tax defaulters incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
It will take a long time to change this state of affairs and there is no indication that any political party is even willing to begin the process. So obsessed are they all with the fear of offending any small minority that, in the inevitable mess that stems from this muddled philosophy, the rights of the majority which should take precedence are ignored.
Although voter apathy has been identified as part of the problem, an even bigger problem exists with the party political system of so-called democracy that we suffer today. In a proper democratic system, voters� representatives would canvass their constituents� opinions on important topics and cast their votes in the Commons in accordance with their wishes.
We, unfortunately have an elected dictatorship. Every five years or so we get the chance to elect one of two parties, neither of which has in recent years served, anybody particularly well. Even this decision usually rests with a handful of voters in an even smaller handful of �marginal� constituencies. For five years we are stuck with a package of measures which that Party sees fit to inflict upon the electorate. The true wishes of the voters are lost and that is why we find ourselves the victims of some of the most ridiculous circumstances imaginable.
No, I don�t know all the answers, but I certainly know most of the questions!
That's enough from me. Happy Christmas!
It started with a perfectly sound hypothesis, suggesting that laws and traditions that have been in force for some time, and for which there might just be sound bases, were in danger of being swept away without proper consideration. It swiftly moves on until it is suggested that, as a result of your views, you might like to see ageing Council Tax defaulters incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
It will take a long time to change this state of affairs and there is no indication that any political party is even willing to begin the process. So obsessed are they all with the fear of offending any small minority that, in the inevitable mess that stems from this muddled philosophy, the rights of the majority which should take precedence are ignored.
Although voter apathy has been identified as part of the problem, an even bigger problem exists with the party political system of so-called democracy that we suffer today. In a proper democratic system, voters� representatives would canvass their constituents� opinions on important topics and cast their votes in the Commons in accordance with their wishes.
We, unfortunately have an elected dictatorship. Every five years or so we get the chance to elect one of two parties, neither of which has in recent years served, anybody particularly well. Even this decision usually rests with a handful of voters in an even smaller handful of �marginal� constituencies. For five years we are stuck with a package of measures which that Party sees fit to inflict upon the electorate. The true wishes of the voters are lost and that is why we find ourselves the victims of some of the most ridiculous circumstances imaginable.
No, I don�t know all the answers, but I certainly know most of the questions!
That's enough from me. Happy Christmas!
Judge J - there are not enough stars available on this site to give you 5, but if there were, I would.
I'd also love the Adam Smith democratic model - but, alas, because of party politics and the Whip system it will never happen.
Hey ho - I'm going home.
Merry Christmas everybody - including those that have 'wrong' opinions.
I'd also love the Adam Smith democratic model - but, alas, because of party politics and the Whip system it will never happen.
Hey ho - I'm going home.
Merry Christmas everybody - including those that have 'wrong' opinions.
"Distortions quickly ensue, as we�ve seen here in what started as a perfectly well reasoned debate.
It started with a perfectly sound hypothesis, ....."
The hypothesis: "Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors"
And you think this is reasonable and sound? If you are a judge, I sincerely hope I don't ever get charged with a crime!
However, to finish on a more positive slant, i do agree that the 'democracy' that we have is not fair or representative - however, I must confess that in part I am glad of that - otherwise it would only put more power into the hands of people like Murdoch.
It started with a perfectly sound hypothesis, ....."
The hypothesis: "Taking their logic one step further, presumably they feel that prisoners should also be allowed to act as jurors"
And you think this is reasonable and sound? If you are a judge, I sincerely hope I don't ever get charged with a crime!
However, to finish on a more positive slant, i do agree that the 'democracy' that we have is not fair or representative - however, I must confess that in part I am glad of that - otherwise it would only put more power into the hands of people like Murdoch.
