Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
Feb. 10th, 2011 09:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueIn 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 03:34 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-10 03:45 pm (UTC)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.