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

[ahinton]

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.

Agreed in all particulars except that, whilst what you say about the ECHR stance on this is in itself correct and I accept that it is what it is, I don't personally believe that it goes far enough and should extend that prohibition of a blanket ban to cover all prisoners not convicted of electoral fraud on the grounds of the inherent disconnectivity of the right to vote from the crime committed for which the criminal is imprisoned.

[Flosshilde]

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.

Perhaps they should be, but they're not - they're in prison. So why should they be denied a right to vote they would have had if they had been in a mental health hospital?

[french frank]

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.

Probably - but that is all the more reason for them to be treated differently if they are in prison. However, some answers here seeem to imply that an objection to the current 'blanket ban' means allowing ALL prisoners to vote - no matter how heinous their crimes. It doesn't.

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.

If there are four categories of prison - Category A for the most dangerous &c. - why could the court/judge not, having heard all the circumstances in order to pass sentence, not categorise a prisoner instead e.g. Categories A and B sentenced to lose their vote, C & D not? [But I would back ahinton's alternative - for the same reasons].

[ahinton]

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.

Even if that is the case - and it may well be in some instances - the people concerned would not then be denied the vote!

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.

Of course that is true, but then the issue here would appear to be that of the fact that most if not all of those who are against restoration of the vote to all prisoners tend to be rather more exercised by the punishment aspect than the rehabilitation of prisoners.

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

No, indeed it isn't - but then that would not in any case be an issue if the vote were to be restored to all prisoners!

[ahinton]

Probably - but that is all the more reason for them to be treated differently if they are in prison. However, some answers here seem to imply that an objection to the current 'blanket ban' means allowing ALL prisoners to vote - no matter how heinous their crimes. It doesn't.

It doesn't indeed; it just happens that I believe that it should.

If there are four categories of prison - Category A for the most dangerous &c. - why could the court/judge not, having heard all the circumstances in order to pass sentence, not categorise a prisoner instead e.g. Categories A and B sentenced to lose their vote, C & D not? [But I would back ahinton's alternative - for the same reasons].

It would be perfectly possible were the law to be altered to provide for that and were ECHR to endorse such provision, but it would still seem hard to justify, because the crimes for which category A prisoners would have been convicted will clearly be unconnected with the right to vote that, in my view, can justly and logically be called into question only in respect of prisoners convicted of involvement in rigging or otherwise interfering with the conduct and outcomes of local or general elections.

[ahinton]

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.

Some guesswork allowed, I think! You are right, in principle, about most if not all of this and the very fact that you are serves to illustrate both the vital importance of rehabilitatory work during sentences (particularly in terms of discouragement from re-offending) and the need for these post-sentence obstacles to be demolished as far as possible because, once the sentence has been served, the criminal should be free in every way other than the obvious one of having his/her crime/s and sentence details maintained on record.

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.

I think that you defeat your own argument here. It is unreasonable to suggest that no electoral candidate "will offer the changes" required by prisoners on the grounds that not all prisoners want the same changes or would vote the same way.

When it comes to defining evil

Who's doing that here? - and what does it have to do with the thread topic?

the Hindleys and Bradys of this world are evil

That's not how everyone would describe them (which is not to undermine the gravity of their crimes, of course).

but the system is hardly a model of saintliness

No, indeed it isn't - but then it wasn't put together by saints and isn't run by saints either!

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.

Whilst it's true that sensationalist journalism may have given - or at least striven to give - that impression to its readership and viewership, I think that the numbers of people who reacted as you describe are not representative of a majority of the population and I am not inclined to believe that "all prisoners are condemned" by that majority any more than was the case more than a decade ago.

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?

I think that it would be helpful if you were clearer as to what you mean both by "the entire system" and by its being "completely ridiculous"; do you mean the judicial system, the system of lawmaking, the structure and conduct of policing or all three or something else altogether and on what specific grounds? I'm not arguing - just asking.

[ahinton]

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.

That's spot on. We should. We don't (or only to a very limited degree).

[Lateralthinking1]

Probably - but that is all the more reason for them to be treated differently if they are in prison. However, some answers here seeem to imply that an objection to the current 'blanket ban' means allowing ALL prisoners to vote - no matter how heinous their crimes. It doesn't.

If there are four categories of prison - Category A for the most dangerous &c. - why could the court/judge not, having heard all the circumstances in order to pass sentence, not categorise a prisoner instead e.g. Categories A and B sentenced to lose their vote, C & D not? [But I would back ahinton's alternative - for the same reasons].

He could do but it isn't as easy as it sounds. I don't know the specific categories but a politically motivated crime and an identical one not motivated by politics could be in the same category. I have written a "book" here now. It can be summarised succinctly:

1. It is the wrong priority and a slap in the face to those struggling to be law-abiding at a time of economic crisis.
2. It won't be of practical help to prisoners. They won't be able to effect change. It will, in fact, be a form of taunting.
3. It is an unhelpful diversion from meaningful reform and an excuse for it not to happen. A sense of "we've done enough".
4. It will lead to problems in prison management as political disputes arise, almost certainly on racial lines.
5. That could spill out onto our streets and lead to widespread racial disharmony during elections with impacts on voting.

6. It blurs the lines between those undergoing punishment and all other people. Society is best served by clear signals.
7. Selection of voting rights is irrational in terms of the wording of ECHR as either there are free elections or there are not.
8. To distinguish between categories of offences is actually to retain the link between having no vote and irrelevant offences.
9. Minor offences for occupation of spaces could be subject to a punishment that is not applied to very serious crime.

10. A political distinction is very questionable anyway - who is to say what is political or not?
11. If Britain were to become like Greece, it could effectively label hundreds of thousands of demonstrators as terrorists.
12. It will devalue the good work of the ECHR in the eyes of a significant proportion of the electorate.
13. The electorate doesn't want it. Neither does the Government. It is dictating to the democratic process.

[Lateralthinking1]

the need for these post-sentence obstacles to be demolished as far as possible because, once the sentence has been served, the criminal should be free in every way other than the obvious one of having his/her crime/s and sentence details maintained on record.

Very little is being done or will be to address these issues.

Hindley and Brady as evil - That's not how everyone would describe them (which is not to undermine the gravity of their crimes, of course).

Speechless! Probably just as well as I absolutely refuse to debate it.

I am not inclined to believe that "all prisoners are condemned" by that majority any more than was the case more than a decade ago.

No - but they are by post 1997 legislation. See Point 1 above.

I think that it would be helpful if you were clearer as to what you mean both by "the entire system" and by its being "completely ridiculous"; do you mean the judicial system, the system of lawmaking, the structure and conduct of policing or all three or something else altogether and on what specific grounds? I'm not arguing - just asking.

Fair enough. The political and legal systems. Not all the policing.

[Flosshilde]

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.

Being detained, in itself, does not mean that you lose the rights enjoyed by other people. It does not necessarily mean that you cannot manage your own financial or legal affairs.

Your right to vote is not affected, provided your name is on the electoral register, either at your old address, or at the hospital.

http://www.mind.org.uk/help/rights_and_legislation/mind_rights_guide_1_civil_admission_to_hospital

[Mandryka]

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 )

It is actually BECAUSE I worked in the Probation Service that I became interested in Objectivism. When I joined it, I would have described myelf as a leftist...when I left it, this was no longer the case.

I think you and those of your way of thinking sometimes underestimate the sophistication of the criminal mind....and its ability to make a convincing case (to you) for the crimes it commits. Believe you me, plenty of those people know exactly what they're doing and will continue to do it unti (too late) their bluff is called.

We've had forty-seven years of soft law enforcement policies in the UK and I think the tide needs to turn.

[Flosshilde]

Originally Posted by ahinton View Post
Hindley and Brady as evil - That's not how everyone would describe them (which is not to undermine the gravity of their crimes, of course).

Speechless! Probably just as well as I absolutely refuse to debate it.

Why not? They were diagnosed as being 'criminally insane' (I think that's the correct term) which is why they weren't in prison, but a secure hospital.

[Lateralthinking1]

Being detained, in itself, does not mean that you lose the rights enjoyed by other people. It does not necessarily mean that you cannot manage your own financial or legal affairs.

Your right to vote is not affected, provided your name is on the electoral register, either at your old address, or at the hospital.
http://www.mind.org.uk/help/rights_a...on_to_hospital

Well I was wrong on that then. I apologise. It appears that there were changes around 2006.

It is though in direct contradiction to the smoking ban on those who are sectioned.

And 13 of my 14 points still apply. I have amended my list accordingly.

You can try for the rest of the year if you like but I am not debating Hindley and Brady in those terms. It is a no as in no!

[Bryn]

... the sophistication of the criminal mind...

http://www.livescience.com/13083-criminals-brain-neuroscience-ethics.html

and, of course:

http://www.criminalmindsfanwiki.com/page/Criminal+Minds+Psychology+101

[Mandryka]

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.

I left of my own free will because I got a better job. Hopefully that clarifies your befuddled thinking.