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 07:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-11 09:00 am (UTC)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.