Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[sobrique]

In the news today, we have a debate going on, about prisoners being allowed to vote. The European court of human rights says that not letting them vote is a violation of human rights, and the the UK government has been told to 'fix it'.

It seems to be hotly debated, but I'm trying to figure out what the big objection is - surely a prisoner has as much right to express their view about the government as anyone else? Perhaps more so, as they're more intimately familiar with the justice system.
As long as 'society as a whole' is happy with their incarceration and conditions, then... their vote will be outweighed, and that's simply democracy at work.
I don't see any real reason why someone who's convicted of a crime has their opinion invalidated, any more than ... well, frankly any other minority opinion - be that voting BNP or voting Green party.
As long as that opinion remains a minority, then nothing needs doing as a whole.
If that opinion _stops_ being a minority, then even if it was a crime, then the Government needs to sit up and have a look.

Am I missing something? I mean, even if a criminal does vote to make ... whatever crime they committed (be it expenses fraud, or rape) legal, as long as the rest of society disagrees, then no change there.

Comments

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

but denying the vote to prisoners is just another example of the childish need to dehumanise

No it isn't. Disenfranchisement is not a petty matter, and should be seen as childish.

As I said to Marcus:

By committing a crime that would deserve a custodial sentence should they get caught, they've also forfeited their right to vote.

This underlines the idea that criminal behaviour is abnormal and outside the rules.

That said, having your right to vote restored as part of the path to parole and early release, I think is a good idea. Making it a crucial stage of rehabilitation is something I can get behind.

[queex.livejournal.com]

By committing a crime that would deserve a custodial sentence should they get caught, they've also forfeited their right to vote.

Why?

It does not follow. It's a complete non-sequitur.

They don't forfeit their right to protection under the law. They don't forfeit their right to live. They do forfeit certain liberties, but only those necessary for the protection of others in a very direct fashion. Denying them a vote does not protect the rest of the population, neither does it inhibit their ability to offend in future. It serves no purpose, other than assuaging people's feelings that prisoners are fundamentally 'worse than us', which is an attitude that benefits no-one.

(Another point is that the European law is probably intended to prevent imprisonment from being used as a tool of an oppressive regime- not something ever likely to be a problem in the UK, but before Western democracies can wax lyrical about other countries doing so, we need to make sure we're playing by the same rules already.)

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

Why?
Well, I was talking in the present tense: Currently, incarceration equals Felony disenfranchisement.

I understand that it comes from a time when exile was still an option. This gives us the perspective of why the law wasn't adjusted to give rights to criminals; Exile removes any right to engage in the society you've wronged, after all.

Denying them a vote does not protect the rest of the population, neither does it inhibit their ability to offend in future.
I disagree. An attempt to make those who chose to not be part of society engage with its structure could easily include being given the right to vote back. It could easily be an essential part of the rehabilitation process.

Of course, overhauling the justice system and making it so it addresses the causes of crime (and examine why some crimes are wilfuly ignored) would be a more useful thing to do, but that's a different conversation entirely.

[queex.livejournal.com]

Well, I was talking in the present tense: Currently, incarceration equals Felony disenfranchisement.

This is known as the is-ought fallacy. I'm saying the current situation is morally wrong and should be changed. Arguing that it should not be changed because it is right, and it is right because that's the way it is done is circular.

I disagree. An attempt to make those who chose to not be part of society engage with its structure could easily include being given the right to vote back. It could easily be an essential part of the rehabilitation process.

You seem obsessed with the idea that everyone who is sent down has made some conscious and collected decision to 'opt-out of society', but that's an absurd attitude. It's a bizarre mischaracterisation of why crime is committed. Besides, even if some hypothetical criminal had made such a conscious decision, I still don't accept that their refusal to operate in society is best met by removing their right to vote.

As I said, it's a non-sequitur.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

You fail to get my point. There is further discussion on my journal, if you care to look at some different perspectives.

[queex.livejournal.com]

I think I get what you're driving at- the idea that citizenship is in some ways a privilege rather than a right, and certain aspects can be revoked- I just think that it's not just that voting be one of the privileges that can be taken away. Unlike the loss of liberty, where there is a direct relationship, the connection to voting is arbitrary.

There is not a hard line of 'badness' between custodial sentences and other sentences- in particular judges take into account many personal factors when sentencing. It's entirely possible for two people to commit fundamentally the same crime, but only one be sent to prison. A case can be made that the circumstances warrant a greater restriction of liberty on one than the other, but I don't accept that decision regarding personal liberty should spill over into voting rights.

It may be how the law currently runs, but it's certainly not written into the constitution (being as we don't have one) and thus subject to change like any other law. I would like the law changed, in exactly the way the European ruling wants.

In short, I get your point, I just think it's rubbish.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

And I think you don't have a full perspective.

Take a look at putrescines comments on the subject on my LJ, and this

http://ybtj.cjsonline.gov.uk/

[queex.livejournal.com]

Well, putrescine's argument seem to have two prongs- the first the is-ought 'that's how it is/has been for a long time' which I reject as a good reason outright. The second is that there is a fundamental link between voting and appropriate citizenship- again I see no good reason for the link.

I get your point, I see your perspective- I just think it's bunk.

there remains a quite legitimate desire by the wider population for an element of punishment

is worrying- I utterly reject the idea that punishment, purely for punishment's sake, has any place whatsoever in criminal justice. The three purposes of prison are:

1 - Deterrent
2 - Rehabilitation
3 - Prevention (i.e. prevent criminal acts while the sentence is served)

Introducing punishment into that is always and everywhere an evil act.

[ed-fortune.livejournal.com]

As I have said repeatedly, the return of ones rights should be part of rehabilitation.

You don't permanently lose your rights, they're suspended.

You seem to think the "No" side is vindictive. I think that's unfair, and fosters the harmful 'Us versus Them' attitude which is horribly damaging.

Of course, they are better methods, and a massive change to what is regarded as criminal and how we deal with the reasons behind crime is long overdue. I'd rather see energy and effort put into that than this.

The perspective we need of course, is an ex-cons, but the ones I know aren't on LJ, nor would they really want to talk about it.

You're probably best of directing any replies on the relevant threads on my journal if you want to continue: I won't be in a position to reply for a few days.