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

[ahinton]

Thank you to RM for the good comments.

I am still not sure whether the people who want prisoners to have the vote have addressed the question of prisoners being able to become Parliamentary candidates. If you have one but not the other, there is still a so-called infringement of human rights.

Standing as a candidate would mean them being able to campaign - knocking on doors, leafleting, speaking at the town hall debates, etc - for if they were prohibited from doing those things, that too would be a so-called infringement of human rights.

And then there is the question of whether they should be prohibited from attending Parliament daily if elected. Prohibition of attendance in Parliament by an elected representative would also be a so-called infringement of human rights. Sinn Fein candidates stood for Parliament having declared that they would not take their seats if elected. That though was their choice.

I am not convinced that voting should be artificially selected out as the measure of democratic equality. It isn't rational. Actually, I think it is mainly a money spinner for lawyers. I would be voting against it in any case for the reasons I have outlined.

If you'll forgive me for saying so (and you'd probably feel no reason to!), I think that your conclusions here are somewhat naïve and contrived, to the extent that, if taken to their illogical conclusion, the withdrawal of liberty from those put in prison to enjoy freedom of movement and action would appear to be an infringement of human rights and I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that per se! Furthermore, if Britain had the same attitude to Australia in terms of declining to vote being a punishable offence (is this still the case there? - I don't know), then an anomalous situation would arise; do/did Australian prisoners have the right to vote? Again, I do not know, but it's a fair question, I think.

[Lateralthinking1]

You're right. Article 3 of the First Protocol says "free". There is case law that says elections must be fair.

As far as capital punishment is concerned, Protocol 6 bans it in all circumstances (even though in 1950 there had been a 'get-out' clause). All signatories have signed and ratified Protocol 6, except Russia, who has signed it but hasn't yet ratified it. The UK ratified Protocol 6 in 1998. None of the 46 signatories allows capital punishment.

Here's a digest of Hill v UK (the case that's caused the present hoo-ha):

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres...étenus_EN.pdf

Yes, thank you for signposting Protocol 6 which addresses capital punishment. However, Russia is a big place and it may never ratify. Furthermore, independent Belarus executed 2 people only last year.

The Protocol requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war". To my mind, that isn't a ban anywhere. It could be justified by anyone at any time because of a perceived Islamic threat.

A part of me feels that I am being unfair because I am analysing every last word of it. The other part thinks it entirely appropriate when that is precisely what is being done systemically on voting and other matters.

(Incidentally, I should have said 'recent European interference' rather than specifically 'EU interference')

[scottycelt]

Indeed you are, since you continually equate Anarchism, the political and philosophical movement, with what some people, including the dear old Daily Mail, call 'anarchism' (note the upper & lower case), & apply to the riots in England last year.

And as you are so keen on faux-simple 'yes or no' questions, here's one for you. Do you condemn the Catholic Church, up to and including the Pope, for concealing years of child abuse by its priests, and assisting some of them to evade any criminal charges? Yes or no?

Another total irrelevance, but wholly predictable from you, Flossie ... but seeing you've asked I'll answer it in the same way as I've done many times before.

No, I certainly do not condemn the Catholic Church for shameful and criminal child abuse, anymore that I condemn the NHS for cases of child abuse and subsequent 'cover-ups' and serial murderers like Harold Shipman ... I take it that you do?

Yes, I do thoroughly condemn the heinous practices of the wretched clerics responsible and some church authorities (parish priests, bishops etc ) for their abject failure to deal with such matters effectively many decades ago, just as I do the reported heinous practices and 'cover-ups' of child and older person abuse in secular establishments.

Hope that's now crystal clear. No to condemning those with absolutely no connection to the crimes. Yes to those directly involved and those who knew and failed to act appropriately.

Regarding the actual subject of this thread, I'm not particularly keen in getting involved in another pointless discussion about personal definitions and meanings. The 'anarchists' to which I refer are those individuals with their red and black flags, often wearing face-masks and hoods, and seen throwing smoke-bombs at police officers.

They call themselves Anarchists ... how would you prefer to describe them ... ?

[amateur51]

Another total irrelevance, but wholly predictable from you, Flossie ... but seeing you've asked I'll answer it in the same way as I've done many times before.

No, I certainly do not condemn the Catholic Church for shameful and criminal child abuse, anymore that I condemn the NHS for cases of child abuse and subsequent 'cover-ups' and serial murderers like Harold Shipman ... I take it that you do?

Shocking evasion, scotty - Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved in these evasions up to his oxters and now has the gall to profess surprise and disappointment now that he is Pope Benedict the Umpteenth.

The NHS recognised and acknowledged its failings immediately in the case of Harold Shipman and has sought to put measures in place to prevent their happening again - the two 'events' are incomparable.

[Lateralthinking1]

If you'll forgive me for saying so (and you'd probably feel no reason to!), I think that your conclusions here are somewhat naïve and contrived, to the extent that, if taken to their illogical conclusion, the withdrawal of liberty from those put in prison to enjoy freedom of movement and action would appear to be an infringement of human rights and I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that per se! Furthermore, if Britain had the same attitude to Australia in terms of declining to vote being a punishable offence (is this still the case there? - I don't know), then an anomalous situation would arise; do/did Australian prisoners have the right to vote? Again, I do not know, but it's a fair question, I think.

On your first, the question is not whether the restriction of movement and action because of imprisonment is a broad infringement of human rights but rather whether restrictions on ordinary political movement and action such as campaigning because of imprisonment would be an infringement of human rights where all citizens are to have an equality of democratic freedom.

What I am saying is that giving the vote to prisoners doesn't make prisoners democratically equal even if it might place a tick in a legal box. It is pretty clear anyway to anyone with sense that the original intention of the Article was to prevent dodgy elections as they are commonly understood or an absence of elections. It is being taken way beyond the main original intention.

On Australia, I don't know the present position. However, turnout has never been close to 100% there although it has tended to be 90% plus. As far as I am aware, non voters aren't generally imprisoned, nor should they be in my opinion.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, thank you for signposting Protocol 6 which addresses capital punishment. However, Russia is a big place and it may never ratify. Furthermore, independent Belarus executed 2 people only last year.

The Protocol requires parties to restrict the application of the death penalty to times of war or "imminent threat of war". To my mind, that isn't a ban anywhere. It could be justified by anyone at any time because of a perceived Islamic threat.

A part of me feels that I am being unfair because I am analysing every last word of it. The other part thinks it entirely appropriate when that is precisely what is being done systemically on voting and other matters.

(Incidentally, I should have said 'recent European interference' rather than specifically 'EU interference')

I'm very sorry, I'm misleading you (as you might guess, I don't have much at my fingertips at the moment). Protocol 6 was superseded by Protocol 13, which is an outright ban on capital punishment in all circumstances. Poland and Armenia have signed but not yet ratified. Russia and Azerbaijan have not signed. Everyone else has (there are 47 members, not 46 as I said earlier). The UK ratified Protocol 13 in 2002.

Belarus is not a member of the Council of Europe. The ECHR apples only to members. If Belarus ever wants to join, it will have to adopt Protocol 13.

This nothing to do with the EU, except that the EU will not accept a new member which has not signed the ECHR.

That should put the record straight.

[MrGongGong]

The 'anarchists' to which I refer are those individuals with their red and black flags, often wearing face-masks and hoods, and seen throwing smoke-bombs at police officers.

They call themselves Anarchists ... how would you prefer to describe them ... ?

DO THEY ?
have you asked them ?


Or are they are like the "Christians" who after getting absolution from the Pope massacred the Cathars ?

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm very sorry, I'm misleading you (as you might guess, I don't have much at my fingertips at the moment). Protocol 6 was superseded by Protocol 13, which is an outright ban on capital punishment in all circumstances. Poland and Armenia have signed but not yet ratified. Russia and Azerbaijan have not signed. Everyone else has (there are 47 members, not 46 as I said earlier). The UK ratified Protocol 13 in 2002.

Belarus is not a member of the Council of Europe. The ECHR apples only to members. If Belarus ever wants to join, it will have to adopt Protocol 13.

That should put the record straight.

Yes, thank you. That is very helpful. Would you say that Russia, Poland, Armenia and Azerbaijan might be asked how many more years they need than the decade they have had so far to sign and/or ratify a Protocol prohibiting execution?

I feel that perhaps we should see action in that regard before they start to dictate to us on how we manage our prison population, all of whom have the benefit of living.

[Flosshilde]

Another total irrelevance,

Regarding the actual subject of this thread, I'm not particularly keen in getting involved in another pointless discussion about personal definitions and meanings. The 'anarchists' to which I refer are those individuals with their red and black flags, often wearing face-masks and hoods, and seen throwing smoke-bombs at police officers.

They call themselves Anarchists ... how would you prefer to describe them ... ?

Yes, my question is an irrelevance, except that it was an example of the faux-simple 'yes or no' questions you are fond of answering, and which, as you demonstrated, cannot be answered by 'yes' or 'no', but only conditionally. It was an irrelevance just as a discussion of who or what Anarchists are is to the subject of prisoners having the right to vote in elections.

[John Shelton]

Shocking evasion, scotty - Cardinal Ratzinger was personally involved in these evasions up to his oxters

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER
sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church
and other Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001, and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle...eoffenses.doc]

-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.

Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party's legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.

It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.

In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.

Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Prefect

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, SDB
Secretary

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

I'll answer it in the same way as I've done many times before.

No, I certainly do not condemn the Catholic Church for shameful and criminal child abuse

But you condemn the cover up, and Ratzinger's determination to keep it in house?

Regarding the actual subject of this thread, I'm not particularly keen in getting involved in another pointless discussion about personal definitions and meanings [what's pointless about defining terms and establishing some frame of reference informed by knowledge?]. The 'anarchists' to which I refer are those individuals with their red and black flags, often wearing face-masks and hoods, and seen throwing smoke-bombs at police officers.

They call themselves Anarchists ... how would you prefer to describe them ... ?

how would you prefer to describe them ... ? Individuals with red and black flags, often wearing face-masks and hoods, and seen throwing smoke bombs at police officers [themselves frequently seen beating people not throwing smoke bombs at them] who call themselves anarchists or who don't call themselves agents provocateurs but are.

[ahinton]

On your first, the question is not whether the restriction of movement and action because of imprisonment is a broad infringement of human rights but rather whether restrictions on ordinary political movement and action such as campaigning because of imprisonment would be an infringement of human rights where all citizens are to have an equality of democratic freedom.

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.

What I am saying is that giving the vote to prisoners doesn't make prisoners democratically equal even if it might place a tick in a legal box. It is pretty clear anyway to anyone with sense that the original intention of the Article was to prevent dodgy elections as they are commonly understood or an absence of elections. It is being taken way beyond the main original intention.

Were the status quo not what it is and were we therefore able to discuss the return, rather than the giving, of voting rights to prisoners, the matter and indeed its expected outcome might be quite different. Whilst prisoners may be said not to be "democratically equal" to those who aren't prisoners, I see no obvious logic in withdrawing voting rights from a prisoner just because he/she has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to a custodial term that need not and should not of itself presume withdrawal of any additional rights besides those of freedom of movement and action; a prison sentence does not, for example, include or even imply the withdrawal of a right to sleep, to eat or to drink, so why should an exception be made in respect of voting?

On Australia, I don't know the present position. However, turnout has never been close to 100% there although it has tended to be 90% plus. As far as I am aware, non voters aren't generally imprisoned, nor should they be in my opinion.

No, indeed; my understanding is that those entitled to vote who are found not to have voted without good reason are or were subject to a fine rather than a custodial sentence and, after all, it would be an irony and a half were convicted non-votes to be imprisoned in a custodial régime such as Britain's that currently disallows prisoners from voting; you can just hear it, can't you? - "well, I deliberately refused to vote knowing that if I got caught, charged and convicted of it I'd be slung in prison where I'd not have to vote while in there because the law wouldn't allow me to!"...

[Hornspieler]

If it does nothing else, it places them outside the UK democracy; further away from the society most will have to return to. A basic denial of human rights layered indiscriminately upon a punishment, it can only do more harm than good.

RUBBISH

HS

[Pabmusic]

Yes, thank you. That is very helpful. Would you say that Russia, Poland, Armenia and Azerbaijan might be asked how many more years they need than the decade they have had so far to sign and/or ratify a Protocol prohibiting execution? I feel that perhaps we should see action in that regard before they start to dictate to us how we manage our living prison population.

I can't be of great help. The CE has grown greatly in the last 20 years or so (who would ever have thought that Russia would sign the ECHR at all?) The practice in the past has been to insist that new members adopt all terms that exist at the time, but that time allowed for adopting amendments ('Protocols') has usually been generous.

[ahinton]

RUBBISH

HS

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!

[Lateralthinking1]

I can't be of great help. The CE has grown greatly in the last 20 years or so (who would ever have thought that Russia would sign the ECHR at all?) The practice in the past has been to insist that new members adopt all terms that exist at the time, but that time allowed for adopting amendments ('Protocols') has usually been generous.

Yes. These are fair points. Thank you.