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

[french frank]

voting in local and general elections is a constitutional right (and some might say also a citizen's moral duty) and that indiscriminately and globally removing it from prisoners represents a denial (and some might say also an infringement) of that right; I should perhaps repeat that, if indeed my view on restoration of prisoners' voting rights is demonstrably a minority one, I have no desire to seek to enforce it on the majority, preferring as I do merely to express it and explain as best I can why I happen to hold it.

I was reading an article about Cornton Vale Prison (for female offenders in Scotland, for those who wonder). It pointed out that many offenders there are also victims of some sort: of domestic abuse, alcohol, mental health problems &c. which I assume is one reason for the ECHR worry about the 'blanket ban' which says All Prisoners Are Alike - therefore they don't vote. Such 'victims' can't escape from a circle of reoffending and need all help possible - much more than they deserve punishment.

[amateur51]

There's loads of music in prisons
Opera, Choirs , Guitar groups etc etc ......... I used to do some of it, but feel too old for that these days !
There's also lots of research if anyone wants to find out

Dance too. Some of them do amazing work, really build up people's self-confidence, a very useful and creative way of enabling people to explore themselves and their relationships with others and their future at a dark time in their lives. What's more, it's fun (ooooh can't have prisoners having fun, can we?!) and sometimes the staff can see the difference it makes for them too.

[amateur51]

I was reading an article about Cornton Vale Prison (for female offenders in Scotland, for those who wonder). It pointed out that many offenders there are also victims of some sort: of domestic abuse, alcohol, mental health problems &c. which I assume is one reason for the ECHR worry about the 'blanket ban' which says All Prisoners Are Alike - therefore they don't vote. Such 'victims' can't escape from a circle of reoffending and need all help possible - much more than they deserve punishment.

We (society) should use the time during which these people are removed from society to build them up physically, educationally psychologically and emotionally, listen to them, and help to repair some of the earlier damage that continues to blight their lives and which often results in damage to other people's lives.

Victims indeed.

[Pabmusic]

I was reading an article about Cornton Vale Prison (for female offenders in Scotland, for those who wonder). It pointed out that many offenders there are also victims of some sort: of domestic abuse, alcohol, mental health problems &c. which I assume is one reason for the ECHR worry about the 'blanket ban' which says All Prisoners Are Alike - therefore they don't vote. Such 'victims' can't escape from a circle of reoffending and need all help possible - much more than they deserve punishment.

Good point. Much the same could be said of hundreds (?thousands) of prisoners.

The main concern about a 'blanket ban', though, is that it is an administrative punishment. It is not imposed by the court in response to the circumstances of the case - the court had nothing to do with it. It is imposed by government without any consideration of the circumstances, opportunity to argue the case, or right of appeal. Voting cannot be something that is automatically lost as the result of being locked up (such as the right to freedom of movement) because we already allow unconvicted prisoners to vote - and other countries allow voting in these circumstances anyway. Therefore (says the ECHR) we cannot have a blanket ban. What we must have is a system that treats loss of voting rights as part of the true punishment, imposed by the court in response to the circumstances of the crime. They didn't say that we can't take away voting rights at all; they just said we must be more specific.

[Lateralthinking1]

I was reading an article about Cornton Vale Prison (for female offenders in Scotland, for those who wonder). It pointed out that many offenders there are also victims of some sort: of domestic abuse, alcohol, mental health problems &c. which I assume is one reason for the ECHR worry about the 'blanket ban' which says All Prisoners Are Alike - therefore they don't vote. Such 'victims' can't escape from a circle of reoffending and need all help possible - much more than they deserve punishment.

I can't go along with that one.

1. Many in the categories you mention - less serious crime - shouldn't be in prison at all but rather in a system for mental health.

2. Nearly all who serve very long, punishing, sentences - eg murder - and couldn't be anywhere other than in prison for now have elements of such things in their backgrounds too.

So how do you pick and choose using those criteria? It isn't possible.

[Mandryka]

Mandrake, please consult the House Rules, then delete your most recent rude and insulting message.

I'm well aware of the House Rules, Bryony, but I don't think you're aware of the distinction between an obervation (which is what I made) and a 'rude and insultiing message'. A pity your education had such shortcomings: I'm sure you'd be a much more agreeable fellow had you gone to a better school. :)

[Mandryka]

We (society) should use the time during which these people are removed from society to build them up physically, educationally psychologically and emotionally, listen to them, and help to repair some of the earlier damage that continues to blight their lives and which often results in damage to other people's lives.

Victims indeed.

Well, OK, SOME of them may be victims but I don't think this 'be good to all' approach works, or is appropriate, to everyone. It's a fact which leftists and liberals don't like to face up to (unless they want to apply it to right-wing politicians, businessmen, or the police force), but some people are just plain evil and don't deserve any second chances.

As a former employee of the Probation Service, I like to think I speak with a degree of authority.....

[Lateralthinking1]

What we must have is a system that treats loss of voting rights as part of the true punishment, imposed by the court in response to the circumstances of the crime.

I am genuinely concerned where this leaves people who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Is the blanket ban for those sectioned merely administrative? If so, the narrow remit of the ECHR case - prisoners - could lead to an outcome that places all those sectioned in the same category as the most punishable.

It is, of course, not the case that they are all incapable of exercising political judgement. By contrast, I believe that people with physical conditions such as severe stroke and locked in syndrome can vote.

To AH, I note that he now says that it is arguably a moral duty to vote and that in the past he has said that it is arguably a moral duty to pay as less tax as possible while staying within the law.

Why then should it not be a moral duty to vote as little as possible?

[Pabmusic]

...but some people are just plain evil and don't deserve any second chances.

As a former employee of the Probation Service, I like to think I speak with a degree of authority.....

Hmmm... I'd say that most prisoners are quite ordinary people, with much the same range of types among them as you find outside. As to whether some are 'evil' - yes, I'd agree, though 'dangerous', 'manipulative' and 'scheming' are less loaded words. Typical psychopathic behaviour would include these qualities, of course, but most prisoners are not psychopaths. As for the rest, they show good and bad qualities; acts might be 'evil' before people are.

[amateur51]

Well, OK, SOME of them may be victims but I don't think this 'be good to all' approach works, or is appropriate, to everyone. It's a fact which leftists and liberals don't like to face up to (unless they want to apply it to right-wing politicians, businessmen, or the police force), but some people are just plain evil and don't deserve any second chances.

As a former employee of the Probation Service, I like to think I speak with a degree of authority.....

Is this advice for the Prime Minister, Mandy?

'Evil' in my experience is often used as a lazy catch-all for people instead of deeds that they have committed. Separating the deed from the person is of course a more difficult task.

It does chill me that someone as committed to the life and works of Ayn Rand as you apparently are should be involved in the rehabilitation of offenders, Mandy (moving away from the left-right paradigm )

[Lateralthinking1]

To place this in more context, prisoners serving less than one year have an average of 16 convictions. On release, they are wholly unemployable in the current economic climate where everyone finds it difficult to obtain jobs and now that the system encourages employers to check on prison backgrounds they have no chance. The system also puts up barriers on mortgages, insurance, rented housing, self-employment licences and private health. Well, ok, I am guessing on some of those aspects but I bet it is the case.

The vote won't help prisoners. In fact, it could simply lead to frustration. No candidate will offer the changes they require. It is effectively a form of taunting. The system is a fool to itself. Rather than focussing on the legal aspects of voting, it should be applying refinements to those practical areas so that it doesn't lump everyone in together there. You might have prisoners who could design great buildings, turn the economy around etc. As it is, they can't get roofs over their heads and so they return.

When it comes to defining evil, the Hindleys and Bradys of this world are evil but the system is hardly a model of saintliness. During the last decade, people became hysterical to the point of being unreal. They started to believe that axe murderers and child molesters were on every high street. Labour politicians lacked the bottle to lead on putting the numbers into context. They designed a system for protecting the general public against every possible adverse eventuality. Now all prisoners are condemned.

I am the sort of person who avoids going out at night, being in large crowds etc these days but even I can see that the entire system is completely ridiculous. As I said before, other countries live with the possibility of earthquakes. What's wrong with people?

[Pabmusic]

I am genuinely concerned where this leaves people who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act...

Don't worry. This case was about prisoners, not about those who have been sectioned. There are different considerations with mental health, and none of the arguments were rehearsed in this case.

As to 'administrative' punishments - I meant a punishment that is imposed separately from the court case, without any consideration of the circumstances and with no comeback. That may not strictly be administrative, I suppose, but it is certainly no part of due process. Article 6 requires that "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly...". But part of the judgement - loss of voting rights - is not given publicly; nor is the tribunal 'independent and impartial' if part of the judgement is predetermined.

[Lateralthinking1]

Don't worry. This case was about prisoners, not about those who have been sectioned. There are different considerations with mental health, and none of the arguments were rehearsed in this case.

As to 'administrative' punishments - I meant a punishment that is imposed separately from the court case, without any consideration of the circumstances and with no comeback. That may not strictly be administrative, I suppose, but it is certainly no part of due process. Article 6 requires that "everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly...". But part of the judgement - loss of voting rights - is not given publicly; nor is the tribunal 'independent and impartial' if part of the judgement is predetermined.

Yes but - there is always a yes but isn't there - why is it always that the mentally ill are second class citizens compared with prisoners? It is as if they don't exist. Is it that lawyers find it sexier to promote prisoners' rights? Is there more money in it?

This is the smoking ban distinction between the two all over again which needs, if people can bring themselves to do it, to be considered in this instance purely on the grounds of equal rights. Prisoners can smoke. Those sectioned cannot smoke.

You say "there are different considerations with mental health, and none of the arguments were rehearsed in this case". I have seen that kind of argument used in very different contexts. It is difficult to argue against in any way that sticks. But that's the legal side to some extent. Policy should not be made in an artificial vacuum. It has impacts on the standing of other citizens.

From what I can see, the case leaves those sectioned in a refuse bag, not so much dealt with in a blanket way as all uniquely stifled. One can see it now. Lady Jowell or someone similar assessing individual cases of prisoners. This one shall have the vote. That one shall not. Not that it will make one iota of difference to their lives. In the meantime, those who have not been convicted of anything but have experienced significant difficulties for whatever reason can go to hell in a handcart. That isn't fair or logical.

[Pabmusic]

Yes but - there is always a yes but isn't there - why is it always that the mentally ill are second class citizens compared with prisoners? It is as if they don't exist. Is it that lawyers find it sexier to promote prisoners' rights? Is there more money in it?

This is the smoking ban distinction between the two all over again which needs, if people can bring themselves to do it, to be considered in this instance purely on the grounds of equal rights. Prisoners can smoke. Those sectioned cannot smoke.

You say "there are different considerations with mental health, and none of the arguments were rehearsed in this case". I have seen that kind of argument used in very different contexts. It is difficult to argue against in any way that sticks. But that's the legal side to some extent. Policy should no be made in an artificial vacuum. It has impacts on the standing of other citizens.

From what I can see, it leaves those sectioned in a refuse bag.

What you say seems sensible to me, but I have no experience of it. I can understand, though, why the ECHR limited itself to prisoners - it was a case brought by a prisoner. And I very much doubt that the government will want to widen it.

[Bryn]

Is this advice for the Prime Minister, Mandy?

'Evil' in my experience is often used as a lazy catch-all for people instead of deeds that they have committed. Separating the deed from the person is of course a more difficult task.

It does chill me that someone as committed to the life and works of Ayn Rand as you apparently are should be involved in the rehabilitation of offenders, Mandy (moving away from the left-right paradigm )

A51, please note the wording "former employee of the Probation Service". There is no need to draw any implication that we are treating with a former probation officer, or indeed with someone who left the employ of the Probation Service of their own free will.