Does the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners?

[Lateralthinking1]

I agree that people holding a political view would be one sensible definition of political prisoner. I would also find it difficult to name one person here who falls into that category. There are those who are held because of actions that are considered troublesome politically. The sad cases of computer hackers with asperger syndrome spring to mind. There are one or two in every decade who contravene the Official Secrets Act in what they see as the national interest. I suppose you could add in a few terrorist suspects but if there is a more cosseted group of people I have yet to see it on the television. They are like teflon. And that's about it.

The identification of far right hoodlums or indeed active anti-capitalist campaigners focusses principally on law and order. One might see behind it a political objective of ensuring that they are not successful in gaining widespread support. If so, the extent of it must be questioned when, for example, Nick Griffin is an elected representative. That is not to say if push came to shove and much of the population was ready to go on the rampage such individuals on the far right or the left would not be rounded up. We are all political prisoners in a way and, if some of us are not, the majority are in some respects prisoners as well as sort of free.

A part of the problem is ignorance. Many who call themselves anarchists aren't anarchists in the sense that anarchism is read seriously in university. The law enforcement agencies wouldn't understand anarchism in actuality either and probably wouldn't want to know. There are so many contradictions. Those sectioned for mental illness are not having their voting restrictions overturned so once again they are being perceived as more punishable than any other citizen. Society really needs to get its act together. It should start by addressing the unequal rights of those who are not in prison, whether they are ex-offenders or never have been.

[Bryn]

Could we please abandon the double negative?
Thus
you do see that "the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners".

To answer your question, no, in this case 'we' cannot abandon the double negative. It is the more apposite way of expressing the way I view the issue. You, however, are free to abandon it, along with any commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. To put the issue in a somewhat different light, does disenfranchising prisoners confer on them a political status beyond that which the crimes they were convicted of deserves? Do we thus confer upon them a degree of unmerited political martyrdom? I think we may well do, and it looks like we, through our taxes, are quite likely to have to pay for conferring such undeserved political status upon them if our elected representatives have their way.

[Simon]

It will be interesting to see if this develops into a split along the usual left/right lines. It seems to be going that way to a certain extent, anyway.

Comments about anarchists don't help: anarchy is not just the enemy of the state, it is the enemy of all of us, and all democratic societies which protect freedoms have had a system whereby those who want to destroy those freedoms can be watched and if necessary prevented from so doing. So the usual facile and shallow anti-authority, anti-police comments from a certain quarter are as usual, off the mark.

The idea that the right to vote is also a human right is off beam; the right to vote has never, until a couple of unelected (and who knows how competent?) judges decided to interfere, formed part of the UN Declaration, nor been recognised as a Substantive right. That's not to say that it could not ever be, but that isn't the current point.

[MrGongGong]

It will be interesting to see if this develops into a split along the usual left/right lines. It seems to be going that way to a certain extent, anyway.

Comments about anarchists don't help: anarchy is not just the enemy of the state, it is the enemy of all of us, and all democratic societies which protect freedoms have had a system whereby those who want to destroy those freedoms can be watched and if necessary prevented from so doing. So the usual facile and shallow anti-authority, anti-police comments from a certain quarter are as usual, off the mark.

I think you are also confusing Anarchism
some might wear the "uniform" of Anarchism in the same way that some might commit crime in the name of their religion

and why do some folk INSIST that the old "left/right" thing has any relevance at all these days ?

[agingjb]

The prison population is roughly that of a single parliamentary constituency. If we must, let them all vote, returning a single MP. We can wonder about the status and reception of the elected person in the Commons.

[Bryn]

The prison population is roughly that of a single parliamentary constituency. If we must, let them all vote, returning a single MP. We can wonder about the status and reception of the elected person in the Commons.

That suggestion has a certain attraction, for sure, though I suspect the major political parties night fight shy of putting up candidates.

[Flosshilde]

Does the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners?

Discuss. I, by the way, can not see how it does not.

No, because they haven't been imprisoned (most of them, anyway) for political beliefs, which I would think is the basic definition of a political prisoner.

However, I see no reason why prisoners should not be able to vote. One of the aims of imprisonment is rehabilitation; that is, making them fit to be part of society (yes, that begs lots of questions). If you tell someone that they are unfit to participate in a fundamental human right then that's not going to help that process much, is it?

[Lateralthinking1]

Of course, policy in law generally has to be rational and a part of that is consistency. Is there a category of people in the UK which has the right to vote but does not have the right to stand for Parliament? What is being proposed seems out-of-kilter.

[MrGongGong]

However, I see no reason why prisoners should not be able to vote. One of the aims of imprisonment is rehabilitation; that is, making them fit to be part of society (yes, that begs lots of questions). If you tell someone that they are unfit to participate in a fundamental human right then that's not going to help that process much, is it?

Indeed
I fail to understand the supposed "moral"outrage that some have to this idea ?
Having been to several prisons (for work reasons ) the thing that has always struck me about those inside them is how "normal" they are, sometimes likeable and really not much different to the rest of us (with a few exceptions). Which is NOT to say that it's ok to commit crime etc

[french frank]

Discuss. I, by the way, can not see how it does not.

I think it would be more logical to consider anyone who was imprisoned for breaking the law as a political prisoner, since the legislature which framed the law is political (i.e. parliament).

To consider anyone a political prisoner (in a more usual sense) you need to look at the crime for which they have been imprisoned: in what sense could that crime, in the particular circumstances, be described as a political crime and the punishment a political punishment?

Is the right to vote a human right? If so, should all humans be allowed to vote, regardless of age. Are ten-year-olds victims of political repression in being denied the right to vote?

I would simplify matters by giving them all the right to a postal vote if they wanted one. This would be on the grounds of natural justice. How could it be fair for someone sent to prison a month before polling day to be denied a vote, while his/her associate in crime is allowed to vote because they are free but awaiting sentence (for which they will in due time be imprisoned)?

Then again, would there be a social benefit in denying all prisoners the vote on the grounds that there would be an upsurge in exemplary behaviour when an election was looming as people tried desperately to avoid losing their vote?

[Resurrection Man]

.....Do we thus confer upon them a degree of unmerited political martyrdom? ..

I suspect that the greater majority of the UK population couldn't care less.

Lateralthinking's very valid and relevant points about the broader issue of rehabilitation deserve a far wider circulation then the ludicrous concept of 'political martyrdom of prisoners'. I have heard Citizen Smith come up with some tosh in my time but this takes the biscuit.

[scottycelt]

Oh dear scotty you are confused about Anarchism again

No, I'm not!

Just consult any dictionary ... again ... if you find any definition that claims that anarchy (of any kind) is subject to the people's democratic majority approbation, please let me know.

Anarchism, like fascism, largely depends on thuggery because it eschews democratic political norm and behaviour, as it does not even believe in the rule of law in the first place.

[amateur51]

Indeed
I fail to understand the supposed "moral"outrage that some have to this idea ?
Having been to several prisons (for work reasons ) the thing that has always struck me about those inside them is how "normal" they are, sometimes likeable and really not much different to the rest of us (with a few exceptions). Which is NOT to say that it's ok to commit crime etc

It certainly used to be the case (when I was writing background policy papers) that there was a disproportionate representation of people in prisons who had major problems with literacy and numeracy, dyslexia, mental health problems, alcohol & drug problems etc. Additionally there was a disproportionate representation of people who had experience of family breakdown as children and adolescents and who had subsequently experience of being cared for by the state.

To describe people with these major life disadavantages, as Simon does, as being ".. inmprisoned because they have chosen not to obey the rules that most other members of the society observe" seems to me to be ignorant and facile in the extreme.

[Tony Halstead]

No, I'm not!

Just consult any dictionary ... again ... if you find any definition that claims that anarchy (of any kind) is subject to the people's democratic majority approbation, please let me know.

Anarchism, like fascism, largely depends on thuggery because it eschews democratic political norm and behaviour, as it does not even believe in the rule of law in the first place.

Agreed!

[teamsaint]

No, I'm not!

Just consult any dictionary ... again ... if you find any definition that claims that anarchy (of any kind) is subject to the people's democratic majority approbation, please let me know.

Anarchism, like fascism, largely depends on thuggery because it eschews democratic political norm and behaviour, as it does not even believe in the rule of law in the first place.

what, like most of our governments ?