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

[scottycelt]

#70 If you wish to continue an already well-worn dialogue concerning an irrelevance here that Flossie deliberately introduced to divert attention from the subject of this thread that's up to you, but I really have little desire to accept your invitation to swallow the dangled bait this time.

As for anarchists and anarchism, you have already indicated you are not prepared to accept dictionary definitions which therefore does render any debate pointless. Somebody wearing a face-mask whilst waving an anarchist flag I assume must be an anarchist. He/she could be deceiving us all and might really be a toff in disguise, I suppose.

However, if an animal looks like a bull and acts like a bull, I am admittedly rather prone to taking the safer option and wildly assuming it is actually a bull, though I have no doubt that some may well claim that I have not read enough books on the subject and the animal is really a cow.

[MrGongGong]

As for anarchists and anarchism, you have already indicated you are not prepared to accept dictionary definitions which therefore does render any debate pointless. Somebody wearing a face-mask whilst waving an anarchist flag I assume must be an anarchist. He/she could be deceiving us all and might really be a toff in disguise, I suppose.
.

Surely our own "agent" , being himself a master of disguise, might be able to help you out on this one ?

So you really mean that if i was to dress up as the Pope and go on a killing spree then you would naturally assume that I was the Pope ?
If it has a beard and a frock it must be a cardinal ?

[John Shelton]

#70 If you wish to continue an already well-worn dialogue concerning an irrelevance here that Flossie deliberately introduced to divert attention from the subject of this thread that's up to you, but I really have little desire to accept your invitation to swallow the dangled bait this time.

As for anarchists and anarchism, you have already indicated you are not prepared to accept dictionary definitions which therefore does render any debate pointless. Somebody wearing a face-mask whilst waving an anarchist flag I assume must be an anarchist. He/she could be deceiving us all and might really be a toff in disguise, I suppose.

However, if an animal looks like a bull and acts like a bull, I am admittedly rather prone to taking the safer option and wildly assuming it is actually a bull, though I have no doubt that some may well claim that I have not read enough books on the subject and the animal is really a cow.

What "dictionary definitions"? (and where did I indicate I wouldn't accept them, whatever they are?). Anarchism is a complex political philosophy, often pacific to do with resistance not violence, dating back to the C19. You know nothing about it. I see you are sneering at books again.

The Yes / No is a favourite of yours, so just for once try answering the kind of question you so politely demand of other people. Read the Ratzinger text. Was he or was he not covering up child abuse, insisting it was a matter for Church discipline and that's where it should stay.

Yes or No?

[Lateralthinking1]

But the point I was seeking to make was that this is surely not a "question" at all, since the withdrawal of freedoms of movement and action - which one would have thought include the unrestricted freedom actively to campaign to the same extent as electoral candidates "on the outside" can do - is not regarded as a breach of human rights at least to the extent that imprisonment per se following trial and conviction is tantamount to a withdrawal of those rights by the convicted prisoner him/herself rather than something externally imposed other than by due judicial process.

Can you withdraw rights to yourself inadvertently? I doubt it. Many people who are convicted claim to have been unaware of the law but that is not generally a defence against prosecution. A prison regime is imposed. That is precisely the point. It is in many respects another country. They do things differently there. The walls of the building, while practical, are also symbolic. The main walls are the ones which define the regime boundary. A vote wouldn't be integral/internal. For many outside, it would be a red rag.

Most prisoners are Cinderellas. They are not inclined to offer their opinion on which ugly sister is nicest to them. On the other hand, give them the news that they won't be at a disadvantage in terms of future opportunities because of systemic hysteria. That is what would get their support. We need to end the ridiculous situation in which past records can be readily accessed for consideration of the comparatively trivial. Make it easier to sue individuals in housing and employment and make it less easy to sue landlords and employers for individual tenants or employees' actions. Other countries live with the possibility of avalanche and earthquake. We can all probably survive by putting up with a few rough diamonds being given the chance to live ordinary lives.

One of the fascinating things is to see how systemic failure is tackled. Generally it comes down to individuals in the end. Ask Brooks and Coulson or Fred the Shred. Law can and should be improved to tackle systemic failings but prosecution happens to people. I think that there is often a deliberate political blurring of those lines. It is frequently disingenuous and broadly unhelpful. If in Judicial Review, one might well distinguish between, say, Government policy and the application of it by individuals, so there are natural distinctions to be made between a company's driving policy and the way an employee chooses to drive a company vehicle.

Furthermore, the distinctions between individuals are often naive. It might boost our egos to think that we are all whiter than white for never having been imprisoned. When I look around at life as it is lived on a daily basis, I see criminality in other people everywhere. I therefore tend to be of the view that the majority of citizens are only different for not having been imprisoned yet.

[Hornspieler]

Would you care to explain rather than explete? What exactly is wrong, doubtful, illogical or unjust about Jayne's remarks here? Please do enlighten us, because I for one have signally failed to find a word out of place in them - not even "indiscriminately" because, although it is written into current law, the imposition concerned remains "indiscriminate" in that it does not (a) seek to distinguish between lifers and those on one-month sentences, (b) take account of comparative timings of sentences and elections (a factor that is of importance in respect of those serving brief sentences) or (c) demonstrate any specific identifiable, let alone justifiable, legal connection between voting rights and the nature of the legally imposed punishment for the crime of which a prisoner has been convicted.

Over to you!

We all start life with human rights.

Those who abuse those rights, by assault, burglary, libel, fraud, perjury or any other crime which merits a custodial sentence have, by their actions, shown that they do not recognise the rights of their fellow citizens and are therefore not entitled to claim those rights for themselves.

Whether it be the mugger, who knocks an old lady to the ground, a rapist who defiles and terrorises an innocent girl, a drunken motorist who denies other road users the right to safe passage on the highway, a house breaker who denies the house owner owner of a precious heirloom, or a hoodlum who trashes the property of others and threatens the safe passage of law abiding citizens on the street or in trains and buses; they have for me, forfeited their own human rights by their total disregard for the rights of others.

Too many bleeding hearts in this country - but the real agonies are suffered by the innocent victims, not the perpetrators of anti-social and unlawful behaviour.

Nobody wants to be controlled by a totalitarian state; but the present lack of discipline and regard for the law of this land is an encouragement to those "British Nationalist" parties to gain an unwelcome increase in supporters.

HS

[teamsaint]

For wholesale abuses of the legal system (tax laws for example) and of other peoples human rights, look to the top of our society, not to the bottom.

our people are ruthlessly corrupted by a system that uses them as economic cannon fodder....

[ahinton]

Can you withdraw rights to yourself inadvertently? I doubt it. Many people who are convicted claim to have been unaware of the law but that is not generally a defence against prosecution. A prison regime is imposed. That is precisely the point. It is in many respects another country. They do things differently there. The walls of the building, while practical, are also symbolic. The main walls are the ones which define the regime boundary. A vote wouldn't be integral/internal. For many outside, it would be a red rag.

To the bull mentioned above, perhaps? To answer your question, yes, I do think that it is possible to withdraw one's own rights from oneself unwittingly, if not necessarily inadvertently and, whilst it is true that lack of awareness of the law is no excuse, let alone a valid and credible defence against prosecution, my objection here is in the lack of directly demonstrable relationship between the crime and the custodial sentence passed on the criminal for having committed it and the withdrawal of rights other than those that specifically go with the territory of imprisonment, namely the withdrawal from the prisoner of the kinds of freedom of movement and action that he/she may expect as of right when not in prison. The "régime boundary" of the prison should not transcend what is reasonable to justify its existence and proper operation; to remove voting rights strikes me as a kind of add-on to what is already understood as the rightful purpose of detention in custody "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (not that she could give a **** or indeed even be expected to be "pleased", of course).

Most prisoners are Cinderellas. They are not inclined to offer their opinion on which ugly sister is nicest to them. On the other hand, give them the news that they won't be at a disadvantage in terms of future opportunities because of systemic hysteria. That is what would get their support. We need to end the ridiculous situation in which past records can be readily accessed for consideration of the comparatively trivial. Make it easier to sue individuals in housing and employment and make it less easy to sue landlords and employers for individual tenants or employees' actions. Other countries live with the possibility of avalanche and earthquake. We can all probably survive by putting up with a few rough diamonds being given the chance to live ordinary lives.

Whilst such as I understand of what you write here does not seem inherently unreasonable, I remain at a loss to perceive its direct relevance to the issue of prisoners' voting rights; perhaps you could explain more clearly.

One of the fascinating things is to see how systemic failure is tackled. Generally it comes down to individuals in the end. Ask Brooks and Coulson or Fred the Shred. Law can and should be improved to tackle systemic failings but prosecution happens to people. I think that there is often a deliberate political blurring of those lines. It is frequently disingenuous and broadly unhelpful. If in Judicial Review, one might well distinguish between, say, Government policy and the application of it by individuals, so there are natural distinctions to be made between a company's driving policy and the way an employee chooses to drive a company vehicle.

Furthermore, the distinctions between individuals are often naive. It might boost our egos to think that we are all whiter than white for never having been imprisoned. When I look around at life as it is lived on a daily basis, I see criminality in other people everywhere. I therefore tend to be of the view that the majority of citizens are only different for not having been imprisoned yet.

The potential cynicism of such a view notwithstanding, it occurs to me yet again that the withdrawal of prisoner's voting rights is neither explained nor justified by what you write. "To make the punishment fit the crime" perhaps has some relevance here, why would all criminals sentenced to a term in prison be denied voting rights when others fined for their crimes are not? (and such a question of course begs the further one of the cases in which damage limitation is successfully bought by the legasl representatives of certain wealthier criminals in order to commute what might otherwise have been custodial sentences to fines).

[ahinton]

We all start life with human rights.

Those who abuse those rights, by assault, burglary, libel, fraud, perjury or any other crime which merits a custodial sentence have, by their actions, shown that they do not recognise the rights of their fellow citizens and are therefore not entitled to claim those rights for themselves.

Whether it be the mugger, who knocks an old lady to the ground, a rapist who defiles and terrorises an innocent girl, a drunken motorist who denies other road users the right to safe passage on the highway, a house breaker who denies the house owner owner of a precious heirloom, or a hoodlum who trashes the property of others and threatens the safe passage of law abiding citizens on the street or in trains and buses; they have for me, forfeited their own human rights by their total disregard for the rights of others.

Too many bleeding hearts in this country - but the real agonies are suffered by the innocent victims, not the perpetrators of anti-social and unlawful behaviour.

Nobody wants to be controlled by a totalitarian state; but the present lack of discipline and regard for the law of this land is an encouragement to those "British Nationalist" parties to gain an unwelcome increase in supporters.

HS

Well, at least I appreciate your bothering to answer my question! What bothers me still about it, however, if your implication that, whenever anyone transgresses to the extent that they are sentenced to a term in prison, they thereby forego not only their rights to freedom of movement and actions but ALL their human rights; isn't such a notion rather unreasonably indiscriminate, to the extent that someone on a one-month sentence whose term happens to include the date of a General Election should be expected to have voting rights withdrawn from them while in prison in precisely the same way as does a serial murderer and/or rapist on a life sentence does? And, as I've already asked, what is your view on this in respect of those criminals who successfully have what would otherwise have been their custodial sentences commuted to fines, given that the crimes of which they've been convicted are the same regardless of the nature of the punishment meted out to them for having committed them?

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about victims, of course but I don't think that this woefully less than satisfactory state of affairs is by any means necessarily down to "bleeding hearts" in all cases.

[Lateralthinking1]

ahinton

There are many who lose freedom of movement and action who are not a danger to the public. I think that you miss the point of punishment and/or deterrence. You or I may make personal judgements about those. Nevertheless they are a fact of prison life. If you are going to go down the road of requiring justification for prisoners not having a vote, perhaps linking that justification to specific crime, then you will for consistency be asking for a justification of every aspect of sentencing and detention. To some extent, they are what they are. If you, I or others seek broad reform, this is not a democratic or an honest way of achieving it.

In the real world, there may also be practical constraints and resource issues. I can't justify why a prison officer I knew cooked roast turkey for prisoners on Christmas Day but was only entitled by her employer to a sandwich. Nor can I justify how some prisoners might be required to run round the yard for an hour when it would be more healthy for many of them to do supervised ten mile walks. And I really cannot justify why three buses always come along at the same time - especially the number 60.

I feel that this entire voting business is very Notting Hill in tone and a narrow sort of obsession. It will make a few wealthy people more wealthy. The taxpayer is probably paying for it all. It would be about number 35 on my list of ways to improve the lives of offenders. There is no real commitment in the dialogue to that very important objective. It's phony assistance. Most have had enough of that in their lives. In fact, that is arguably why many are there in the first place and go back umpteen times.

And if only it were just an unnecessary and costly distraction. Some are currently in prison because of election fraud. Votes for them too ideally? Should it go through, there will be years and years of courts having to decide who is entitled to vote and who not. A serial rapist might vote perhaps. By contrast, it could be a "no" to someone who lobbed a brick at a student demonstration as the crime was, in a sense, political. No. I'm sorry. The international economy is going down the pan. People are becoming destitute. We shouldn't be giving priority to a game of justifying the salaries of bureaucrats and lining the pockets of lawyers.

[scottycelt]

What "dictionary definitions"? (and where did I indicate I wouldn't accept them, whatever they are?). Anarchism is a complex political philosophy, often pacific to do with resistance not violence, dating back to the C19. You know nothing about it. I see you are sneering at books again.

The Yes / No is a favourite of yours, so just for once try answering the kind of question you so politely demand of other people. Read the Ratzinger text. Was he or was he not covering up child abuse, insisting it was a matter for Church discipline and that's where it should stay.

Yes or No?

a) No, I truly adore books ... honestly ... I wouldn't dream of sneering at any of them.

If the aim of anarchists is to destroy the state and the rule of law (by whatever means) it's hardly surprising that those who are entrusted to protect and uphold these institutions might wish to collect as much information as possible as to the individuals who wish to do away with these institutions. Seems reasonable enough to me.

I tend to have long suspected that I know absolutely nothing about anything as you constantly assert (thank you for once again helpfully confirming this) but fortunately there are others in authority who, I'm sure, are just as well-educated and intelligent as yourself, who appear to have some sort of grasp what anarchist philosophy actually means in practice.

Frightening, eh ... ?

b) No.

[teamsaint]

Scotty,by "Those in authority" , do you mean the police, who appear to be asking the public to report fellow citizens for holding a belief?

[ahinton]

ahinton

There are many who lose freedom of movement and action who are not a danger to the public.

Who? Do you mean people whose state of physical health brings this about? - because, if so (and if those are all that you mean), their situation is quite different in that their condition has enforced something whereas in the case of prisoners their sentencing has done it.

I think that you miss the point of punishment and/or deterrence. You or I may make personal judgements about those. Nevertheless they are a fact of prison life. If you are going to go down the road of requiring justification for prisoners not having a vote, perhaps linking that justification to specific crime, then you will for consistency be asking for a justification of every aspect of sentencing and detention. To some extent, it is what it is. If you, I or others seek broad reform, this is not a democratic or particularly honest way of achieving it.

Given that voting is, as Bryn has rightly observed, the democratic right of almost all citizens aged 18 or over and almost never has any direct connection with crimes committed for which custodial sentences are handed down, one could as easily argue that, "for consistency", one could seek to justify the withdrawal of yet more human rights from prisoners than those which the prisoner forgoes already by reason of having been sentenced! To me, being incarcerated for the sentence term is quite enough of a withdrawal of freedoms for all prisoners other than those who might merit the additional stricture of periods of solitary confinement on the grounds of the dangers and security risks that they might allegedly pose.

You offer no argument about the short term prisoner in terms either of (a) the situation where some might have to miss voting in elections because they happen to be in prison on the day that they're held or (b) whether it be fair that all prisoners, irrespective of the gravity of their crimes and duration of their sentences, be treated equally in having their voting rights withdrawn; why?

In the real world, there may also be practical constraints and resource issues. I can't justify why a prison officer I knew cooked roast turkey for prisoners on Christmas Day but was only entitled by her employer to a sandwich. Nor can I justify how some prisoners might be required to run round the yard for an hour when it would be more healthy for many of them to do supervised ten mile walks. And I really cannot justify why three buses always come along at the same time - especially the number 60.

I cannot justify any of these either, but then I am not an expert in prison administration, although the regular supervision of "ten mile walks" around a relatively small exercise yard might well impose an extra cost upon that taxpayer to whom you refer below; that said, I don't see what difference this makes to the subject under discussion.

I feel that this entire voting business is very Notting Hill in tone and a narrow sort of obsession. It will make a few wealthy people more wealthy. The taxpayer is probably paying for it all. It would be about number 35 on my list of ways to improve the lives of offenders. There is no real commitment in the dialogue to that very important objective. It's phony assistance. Most have had enough of that in their lives. In fact, that is why arguably many are there in the first place and go back umpteen times.

How is it "Notting Hill" (whatever that's supposed to mean), how "narrow" is it, on what grounds would you regard it as an "obsession" and why, how will it make who any wealthier than they are now and how much extra would the taxpayer have to shell out to deliver to and collect from prisons voting papers in four-yearly general elections and annual local government elections? Who besides you needs to care whereabouts you might place the restoration of voting rights to prisoners on your list when the object of so doing is not "to improve the lives of offenders" so much as to respect one of the rights that they will all regain the moment that they leave prison?

And if only it were just an unnecessary and costly distraction. Some are currently in prison because of election fraud. Votes for them too ideally?

That is the one immediate exception with which I would agree and should perhaps have specifically and clearly said as much earlier; that said, just what proportion of the prison population of Britain is represented by election fraudsters? Why should this be a valid exception? Because it actually does realte to the crime committed!

Should it go through, there will be years and years of courts having to decide who is entitled to vote and who not. A serial rapist might vote perhaps. By contrast, it could be a "no" to someone who lobbed a brick at a student demonstration as the crime was, in a sense, political. No. I'm sorry. The international economy is going down the pan. People are becoming destitute. We shouldn't be giving priority to a game of justifying the salaries of bureaucrats and lining the pockets of lawyers.

We should not be doing that, certainly, but we'd not need to do it anyway; if the only prisoners to whom voting were to be denied were election fraudsters, the cost of denying them that right while giving it to all other prisoners would be pocket change and not even require the intervention or other involvement of the courts. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that serial rapists or other prisoners serving lengthy sentences should have their voting rights withdrawn but others serving short ones for more petty crimes should not, for that would indeed involve considerable additional expense to the taxpayer; to me, all prisoners should be entitled (though not compelled) to vote in general and local government elections other than those specifically convicted of election fraud.

[Lateralthinking1]

That is the one immediate exception with which I would agree and should perhaps have specifically and clearly said as much earlier; that said, just what proportion of the prison population of Britain is represented by election fraudsters? Why should this be a valid exception? Because it actually does relate to the crime committed!

Ah, well, there you are. It begins to unravel at that point. Some would see insider trading as a political crime. Some would see polluting the rivers as a political crime. Some would see rape as a political crime. Some would see burglary as largely a consequence of bad politics. Some would see terrorism linked to Islamic fundamentalism as purely religious. Some would see a woman with a long history of mental illness who mouths racist insults on a bus as essentially unwell. It really is never-ending.

But look - we are never going to agree on this subject. The thread has been a great way of having an opportunity to express an opinion. I am grateful to you and especially to Bryn for bringing the issue to the forum. I'm now switching over to music.

[scottycelt]

Scotty,by "Those in authority" , do you mean the police, who appear to be asking the public to report fellow citizens for holding a belief?

Well, yes, team ....

An individual is entitled to believe what they like but those with extreme political views who urge the destruction of the state must surely expect to be monitored by the authorities?

Personally, I'm much more concerned with incredible cases like that of Mark Clattenburg who is nothing more than a football referee, and who was investigated by Scotland Yard because he is alleged to have upset a professional footballer, who was roundly abusing him, by calling the player 'a monkey'. How absurd, and how dangerous when things get to such an intrusive level on the current societal altar of 'political correctness'.

Now that is truly creepy and genuinely worrying, imv ...

[MrGongGong]

Now that is truly creepy and genuinely worrying, imv ...

but this isn't ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9671394/Burning-poppy-photo-Man-arrested-for-posting-image-on-Twitter.html

It might be insensitive but is it a crime ?