Topic: Should Prisoners Have The Right To Vote?

[Roger]

Poll

[Rael]

yes, more likely to vote raving looney than conservative

[NickoH]

They should have no rights.

[Rael]

They should have no rights.

what if they are pending judgement ?

[Kez]

No. The point of being incarcerated is that they are deprived of the privaledges they would have had in the outside world. By having to be put in prison they have proved that they are not capable of obeying the rules of the country, so why should they be allowed to shape that country?

[Rael]

No. The point of being incarcerated is that they are deprived of the privaledges they would have had in the outside world. By having to be put in prison they have proved that they are not capable of obeying the rules of the country, so why should they be allowed to shape that country?

again what if they are pending trial or judgement

[NickoH]

They should have no right unless 'they are pending trial or judgement'...........

[Danny Boys Dad]

I think they should, depending on their crime. At the moment some prisoners can vote anyway.

At least they still reside in the country, not like the ex-pats sitting in Spain and voting by post.

[anon-y-mouse]

How about the old lady jailed for not paying her council tax? I know it's only a short sentence but there could easily be a local election in that time.

[Rael]

They should have no right unless 'they are pending trial or judgement'...........

hoorah !

[Ben S]

How about the old lady jailed for not paying her council tax? I know it's only a short sentence but there could easily be a local election in that time.

Tough shit on her init. She should have paid it and complained by voting against the council.

[Roger]

They should have no right unless 'they are pending trial or judgement'...........

'Remand' prisoners can currently vote by post or proxy.

[Kez]

again what if they are pending trial or judgement

If they are in prison pending trial or judgment (no 'e' in a legal judgment) then they are there for a reason, usually because it is considered by the judge and prosecution that if they are let out on bail they will disappear. Another reason for being incarcerated pending trial and judgment is because of the nature of a crime. Chances are, if they are being tried on suspicion of committing a crime that requires them to be incarcerated, they've probably done it.

[Efes]

yes i think they should but id imagine most of them wouldnt be arsed.

[Hinesy]

yes they should.
If jail is to both punish and encourage people to learn the error of their ways then treating them without any human decency means they will more likely offend when they come out.

BUT! I know there are scum in there who deserve no respect etc for their heinous crimes, yet I believe they are citizens of the country and should be able to vote.

Colour tellies in the rooms, no. Vote, yes.

(and please don't call me a washy liberal and provide examples of terrible criminals, I know the stuff.)

[Danny Boys Dad]

Chances are, if they are being tried on suspicion of committing a crime that requires them to be incarcerated, they've probably done it.

I think if you check your textbooks it says "innocent until PROVEN guilty", not "innocent until CHARGED" 
 

[Hinesy]

I think if you check your textbooks it says "innocent until PROVEN guilty", not "innocent until CHARGED" 
 

Not for Madame Guillotine

[Rael]

If they are in prison pending trial or judgment (no 'e' in a legal judgment) then they are there for a reason, usually because it is considered by the judge and prosecution that if they are let out on bail they will disappear. Another reason for being incarcerated pending trial and judgment is because of the nature of a crime. Chances are, if they are being tried on suspicion of committing a crime that requires them to be incarcerated, they've probably done it.

sorry about spelling.
They can also be refused bail for something as simple as having no fixed abode.
your comment re "probably done it" is shocking

[NickoH]

Rael - Are you a solicitor or something ?

[Kez]

I think if you check your textbooks it says "innocent until PROVEN guilty", not "innocent until CHARGED" 
 

And when you read about people in the papers who have supposedly committed crimes, I bet you think "actually yeah I bet s/he has" and yet they've had no trial. Trial by media is commonplace these days and the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is losing steam as a result. It's only natural to assume that the Police are generally competent enough to do their job and catch the criminal, especially for crimes that routinely deny bail to the applicant.

Want an example of how "innocent until proven guilty" is going out of fashion? The situation Roger's son got into the other night is perfect - he was guilty until proven innocent.

[Rael]

no mate, studied law in college but only the very basics, which include innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Roger]

This is all in the news today of course. But giving Ian Huntley or Robert Black (just two off the top of my head) the right to vote is wrong. In my view.

[hoonin]

They should have no right unless 'they are pending trial or judgement'...........

Even human rights?

Of course they should be allowed to vote. The government are ultimately responsible for rehabilitation, so their policies affect incarcerated people.

Also, those who are due to be released within 5 years (i.e. the usual timeframe of a government) should be entitled to vote on who's defining policies for the time when they are released back into society.

[NickoH]

no mate, studied law in college but only the very basics, which include innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even when I was on jury service nobody could tell me what is 'a reasonable doubt' ?

[Rael]

This is all in the news today of course. But giving Ian Huntley or Robert Black (just two off the top of my head) the right to vote is wrong. In my view.

Huntley should have been hung if we are logging our opinion.
hence he couldn't vote

[Kez]

sorry about spelling.
They can also be refused bail for something as simple as having no fixed abode.
your comment re "probably done it" is shocking

Let me explain -

If you are hunting for a murderer, the Police and CPS will generally (I'd hope) ensure that there is a lot of evidence in place before arresting the suspect and charging him/her with the crime. They won't just go and pick up someone who might possibly have a little bit to do with it all but they're not really sure. And I'd have hoped that generally, the person the CPS is prosecuting for the murder is the one that they are absolutely certain committed the crime, and the evidence is all pointing in their direction. At which point, on the balance of probabilities, you'd have to say the person charged has probably done it.

[Hinesy]

while we're here, the death penalty is wrong in my little opinion. Even for Huntly.

[Ben S]

while we're here, the death penalty is wrong in my little opinion. Even for Huntly.

Yup, should be stoned.

[NickoH]

Even human rights?

Depending what they had done !!
Child sex offenders for example - no human rights........why should they have any ?

[Roger]

Let me explain -

If you are hunting for a murderer, the Police and CPS will generally (I'd hope) ensure that there is a lot of evidence in place before arresting the suspect and charging him/her with the crime. They won't just go and pick up someone who might possibly have a little bit to do with it all but they're not really sure. And I'd have hoped that generally, the person the CPS is prosecuting for the murder is the one that they are absolutely certain committed the crime, and the evidence is all pointing in their direction. At which point, on the balance of probabilities, you'd have to say the person charged has probably done it.

Threshold Test

http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/threshold.html

[hoonin]

If you are hunting for a murderer, the Police and CPS will generally (I'd hope) ensure that there is a lot of evidence in place before arresting the suspect and charging him/her with the crime. They won't just go and pick up someone who might possibly have a little bit to do with it all but they're not really sure.

Means, Motive and Opportunity?

[Kez]

Even when I was on jury service nobody could tell me what is 'a reasonable doubt' ?

Got told that 'reasonable doubt' is belief to the point that you are satisfied that the accused is guilty, but any doubt which a reasonable man (aka the jury) could hold with regards to the accuseds guilt would mean finding him/her not guilty.

Errr eg. an accused's alibi that s/he was in another country at the time of the incident and a credit card bill with a purchase in...I don't know...Spain as proof of this would constitute reasonable doubt of the opportunity.

[Rael]

Even when I was on jury service nobody could tell me what is 'a reasonable doubt' ?

Cant really help, but when I was on jury service, I considered it meant anything but, absolutely certain they committed the crime through both physical and witness evidence.
Might be wrong but no one went out of their way to tell us before trial, during trial or after trial.

[Kez]

Threshold Test

http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/threshold.html

Yes that's what I was after

Means, Motive and Opportunity?

Err yeah...I'm too verbose for my own good!

[Rael]

Let me explain -

If you are hunting for a murderer, the Police and CPS will generally (I'd hope) ensure that there is a lot of evidence in place before arresting the suspect and charging him/her with the crime. They won't just go and pick up someone who might possibly have a little bit to do with it all but they're not really sure. And I'd have hoped that generally, the person the CPS is prosecuting for the murder is the one that they are absolutely certain committed the crime, and the evidence is all pointing in their direction. At which point, on the balance of probabilities, you'd have to say the person charged has probably done it.

you obviously have a lot more faith in our police than I do.
rounding up the usual suspects is more suitable to my past experience.
All prisoners are not murderers either, most are in prison for smaller crimes, hence the amount of High security prisons against open and other type prisons

[Millsee]

Even human rights?

Of course they should be allowed to vote. The government are ultimately responsible for rehabilitation, so their policies affect incarcerated people.

Also, those who are due to be released within 5 years (i.e. the usual timeframe of a government) should be entitled to vote on who's defining policies for the time when they are released back into society.

Agree 100% with this.

[Roger]

you obviously have a lot more faith in our police than I do.
rounding up the usual suspects is more suitable to my past experience.

Like the model murder last week.

 

[Danny Boys Dad]

Depending what they had done !!
Child sex offenders for example - no human rights........why should they have any ?

Because no matter how repellent some people are the mark of a civilised society is that we have rights that apply to everyone, not just some people. Once you start removing rights from some groups where do you stop? Who decides who has rights and who doesn't?

I happen to agree with you, but you just can't do it.

[Rael]

Yup, should be stoned.

or at the very least castrated

[Roger]

nice phrase to use in regard to criminal law

civil law applies that test.