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

[Simon]

Not something you do

If you'd diligently read my post, you would have seen that I admitted that I occasionally do it too.

What is clear is that a small group of people do it very regularly.

[Simon]

My alternative & reasoned arguments appeared some time before the post you quote.

In which case I apologise for my error in this instance. I missed them, and I really don't want to wade through all these pages again.

[Flosshilde]

Perhaps we have other things to do besides sit in front of a computer? I post when I have time. And if someone has said the same - more or less - as I was going to say I usually - often - don't post. Repetition gets boring. Which is why, if a discussion becomes two (or more) people simply stating the same views I stop posting.

[Pabmusic]

...No doubt they miss the good old days of their mis-spent youth - when there were such things as 'socialist' Labour governments and there was such a thing as a 'National Council For Civil Liberties' (maybe there still is, but who's bothered?)- and, if these ageing childrren want to continue their fun and games in cyberspace, I suppose it would be churlish of me to frown on them.

To get back to the original point (although I don't think it was much of a point and it was hardly 'original', in any case): isn't it only reasonable for society to temporarily/permanently disenfranchise those who have transgressed its laws - and that the length of that disenfranchisement should be commensurate with the offence committed?...

As to the first paragraph, the National Council for Civil Liberties (usually called just Liberty) is going strong. Its president, Shami Chakrabati, was an adviser to Lord Leveson in the recent press enquiry. I'm surprised you were unaware of this, as Liberty and Chakrabati are often in the news - including in the last 24 hours.

As to the second paragraph - and without rehearsing the arguments yet again - the ECHR has not said it's wrong to stop convicted prisoners voting. It has said that it's wrong to stop them voting just because they have been convicted of an offence. It's an administrative punishment that's not imposed by the court, and it's entirely unrelated to the offence. It cannot be a right that's impliedly suspended by imprisonment (like the right to freedom of movement) because other countries do allow prisoners to vote - and so do we if they're unconvicted prisoners.

[Lateralthinking1]

As to the second paragraph - and without rehearsing the arguments yet again - the ECHR has not said it's wrong to stop convicted prisoners voting. It has said that it's wrong to stop them voting just because they have been convicted of an offence. It's an administrative punishment that's not imposed by the court, and it's entirely unrelated to the offence. It cannot be a right that's impliedly suspended by imprisonment (like the right to freedom of movement) because other countries do allow prisoners to vote - and so do we if they're unconvicted prisoners.

Are prisoners permitted to take part in customer satisfaction surveys on supermarkets, chocolate bars etc? Can they advertise items that they wish to sell in newspapers? Can they place bets on line? Are they allowed to buy lottery tickets? Are those who are allowed to work in the community permitted to do jury service? If they are shareholders, are they permitted to vote on the content of annual reports or the composition of the board? If they prohibited from doing such things, how are they prohibited?

[Pabmusic]

Are prisoners permitted to take part in customer satisfaction surveys on supermarkets, chocolate bars etc?
...

Yes

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=Lateralthinking1;231665]Are prisoners permitted to take part in customer satisfaction surveys on supermarkets, chocolate bars etc?

Can they place bets on line?

Are those who are allowed to work in the community permitted to do jury service?

How are they prohibited from doing such things?

Can they advertise items that they wish to sell in newspapers?[/QUOTE]

that is just asking for trouble.....

[MrGongGong]

To repeat #142

I'm still in the dark about why this is SO offensive to some folk ?

??

[Pabmusic]

Are prisoners permitted to take part in customer satisfaction surveys on supermarkets, chocolate bars etc?

Can they advertise items that they wish to sell in newspapers? Can they place bets on line?

Are those who are allowed to work in the community permitted to do jury service?

If they are shareholders, are they permitted to vote annually on the composition of the board?

If they prohibited from doing such things, how are they prohibited?

Your post grew after I'd answered it.

You're still missing something. Being able to take part in elections is a human right under the Universal Declaration and the European Convention. Human rights are 'inalienable' - they cannot be taken away. They may be temporarily suspended if they are incompatible with (say) imprisonment. But that does not include voting, because it's not incompatible (we ourselves allow remand prisoners to vote).

None of the things you mention in a human right. I don't know if serving prisoners are disbarred from jury service, but even if they are, it's not relevant to this issue since it's not an infringement of a human right.

[Lateralthinking1]

To repeat #142

I'm still in the dark about why this is SO offensive to some folk ?

??

Many of my reasons are in post 158. Additionally, I don't think that you can rightly have influence coming into the executive and the legislature from those who have been punished by the judiciary. It is cutting across all the usual, rational, recognisable, lines.

Prisoners have been subject to the will of the judiciary. The judiciary is subject to the laws of Parliament. If the laws of Parliament are subject to prisoners' votes, then the judiciary is at least partially subject to prisoners' orders. That is not mere circularity. It means that prisoners are partially running the courts. You could suddenly find yourself in court guilty of a crime because of laws that would not have been introduced had it not been for prisoners' votes. I won't agree to be subjected to prisoners' laws thanks.

The only orders I can believe in are those from the more law-abiding, not less. It is bad enough being subjected to the laws of elected crooks. Where laws are not introduced by the respectable, I will most naturally side with law-breakers. That's what happens in all dodgy regimes. People stop believing in it all, law and order break down, fascist gangs take over in the vacuum.

Furthermore, if I were in prison, I would have a grudge that is even more huge than it is now. I would without question vote for the candidate who would be most likely to make life sheer hell for everyone outside the prison. That is only natural. A vote of revenge.

Am I in favour of prisoners and ex-offenders receiving far more assistance to assimilate? Yes. Much more. But this should not be a society which is forced into it by those badly needing assistance. It should be one in which that assistance is naturally offered.

That could easily be achieved by the electorate and parliamentarians if they weren't spending so much time breaking the law and justifying it. So, for me, the main issue isn't about enabling prisoners into that swamp. It is for everyone in the system to establish more clearly right from wrong. Suitable assistance would flow as a consequence of that sea-change. And that's well overdue.

[Barbirollians]

Many of my reasons are in post 158. Additionally, I don't think that you can rightly have influence coming into the executive and the legislature from those who have been punished by the judiciary. It is cutting across all the usual, rational, recognisable, lines.

Prisoners have been subject to the will of the judiciary. The judiciary is subject to the laws of Parliament. If the laws of Parliament are subject to prisoners' votes, then the judiciary is at least partially subject to prisoners' orders. That is not mere circularity. It means that prisoners are partially running the courts. You could suddenly find yourself in court guilty of a crime because of laws that would not have been introduced had it not been for prisoners' votes. I won't agree to be subjected to prisoners' laws thanks.

The only orders I can believe in are those from the more law-abiding, not less. It is bad enough being subjected to the laws of elected crooks. Where laws are not introduced by the respectable, I will most naturally side with law-breakers. That's what happens in all dodgy regimes. People stop believing in it all, law and order break down, fascist gangs take over in the vacuum.

Furthermore, if I were in prison, I would have a grudge that is even more huge than it is now. I would without question vote for the candidate who would be most likely to make life sheer hell for everyone outside the prison. That is only natural. Hope this helps.

Am I in favour of prisoners and ex-offenders receiving far more assistance to assimilate? Yes. Much more. But this should not be a society which is forced into it by those needing assistance. It should be one in which that assistance is offered.
That could be achieved by Parliamentarians and members of an electorate if they weren't spending so much of its time breaking the law and justifying it. The issue isn't enabling prisoners into that swamp. It is for everyone in the British system
to establish more clearly wrong from right

With respect that is nonsense to suggest that the effect would be that the judiciary would be subject to prisoner's orders- the logical extension of your view is that any person with a criminal record should forfeit the right to vote .

The absurdity of the blanket ban is that it is so random- a person serving a very short sentence may be convicted and then his sentence delayed because the court list was too full and then finds himself in prison for the three months that covers a general election - whilst another person who has just served four years can vote.

[Lateralthinking1]

With respect that is nonsense to suggest that the effect would be that the judiciary would be subject to prisoner's orders- the logical extension of your view is that any person with a criminal record should forfeit the right to vote .

No, I'm sorry, but I refute that absolutely. Your position sounds precisely like the one favoured by Blair's New Labour party, Clegg's Lib Dems and Cameron's liberal Conservatives. For all of the talk about liberal intent - on the surface it is far greater than my own but actually it isn't - you are making no distinction whatsoever in your argument between people serving a sentence and those who have served one or who have otherwise been punished by the law.

Yours is presumably a world in which prisoners should have votes but a rigid system of CRB checks and the like must be a bar to people for ever more. And that is by far the more draconian. What it is saying is rights but no rehabilitation. To my mind it is completely the reverse of authentic, practical, liberalism. In fact, I would argue very strongly that this whole votes thing is essentially a sop for applying a "once a criminal, always a criminal" line.

[Pabmusic]

Many of my reasons are in post 158. Additionally, I don't think that you can rightly have influence coming into the executive and the legislature from those who have been punished by the judiciary. It is cutting across all the usual, rational, recognisable, lines.

Prisoners have been subject to the will of the judiciary. The judiciary is subject to the laws of Parliament. If the laws of Parliament are subject to prisoners' votes, then the judiciary is at least partially subject to prisoners' orders. That is not mere circularity. It means that prisoners are partially running the courts. You could suddenly find yourself in court guilty of a crime because of laws that would not have been introduced had it not been for prisoners' votes. I won't agree to be subjected to prisoners' laws thanks.

The only orders I can believe in are those from the more law-abiding, not less. It is bad enough being subjected to the laws of elected crooks. Where laws are not introduced by the respectable, I will most naturally side with law-breakers. That's what happens in all dodgy regimes. People stop believing in it all, law and order break down, fascist gangs take over in the vacuum.

Furthermore, if I were in prison, I would have a grudge that is even more huge than it is now. I would without question vote for the candidate who would be most likely to make life sheer hell for everyone outside the prison. That is only natural. A vote of revenge.

Am I in favour of prisoners and ex-offenders receiving far more assistance to assimilate? Yes. Much more. But this should not be a society which is forced into it by those badly needing assistance. It should be one in which that assistance is naturally offered.

That could easily be achieved by the electorate and parliamentarians if they weren't spending so much time breaking the law and justifying it. So, for me, the main issue isn't about enabling prisoners into that swamp. It is for everyone in the system to establish more clearly right from wrong. Suitable assistance would flow as a consequence of that sea-change. And that's well overdue.

There are many things here, so I'll be a bit selective.

First, it's not exactly true to say that the judiciary is subject to the will of Parliament. The judiciary acts within the constitution. Now, it's arguable whether the constitution itself is entirely subject to the will of Parliament - something that is rarely tested nowadays - but since we have a common law system, much of the law does not stem from Parliament in the first place, and even where it does, the Acts are sometimes consolidation acts that state the common law position rather than creating something new. (Murder is a good example. And until 1968, theft was a common law offence, despite the Larceny Act 1916) We explain this away by saying that Parliament could invent something new if it wanted to, but is content not to interfere with the common law. Anyway, it is not Parliament that appoints judges, nor can it dismiss them except in some very unusual circumstances involving High Court judges following impeachment.

Whether you can link individual electoral votes and legislation, I very much doubt it. What is voted upon in Parliament is never (I think I can be that specific) what has been voted upon in an election. Even if there is a piece of legislation proposed by the winning party, it changes very much when the detail is applied and amendments are voted on.

Second, it is not helpful to think of prisons as 'the place where the law-breakers are'. It's easy to do, of course, and it's comforting to some to think "well, I'm not like them in there". But every day most of us come into contact with active law-breakers (that scruffy bloke on the tube, or that City type, or that sweet little old lady) or with others who have criminal records - but we never realise it. They vote.

Third, the numbers are interesting. There are currently about 75,000 convicted prisoners. Divided equally among the 650 constituencies that's 115 per constituency. (In reality in would not be an even spread, with the majority being urban.) The effect of these votes would be minimal, unless there was a rash of tight marginals - and that's assuming that there's a 100% prisoner turnout (my feeling is that many fewer prisoners are likely to vote than in the outside group).

Fourth; on the whole, prisoners don't carry grudges against 'society'. Some carry grudges against the police (often a particular police station, or even "that DS ...") but usually they're pretty ordinary people - not always very bright - but with the same sort of concerns as most people. Some of them would like to vote, and the most senior court we recognise says that our current ban isn't lawful in its present form. Our reaction is to threaten to ignore the court (we won't in the end) and say that the thought of prisoners voting makes us physically sick. Who're the grown-ups here?

[Lateralthinking1]

There are many things here, so I'll be a bit selective.

Thank you. I am very sure that lawyers will be able to rationalise until the cows can home. They will stick rigidly to a certain logic while it is working for them and then, when it isn't, abandon it and start to quote irrational law. That's what always happens. It is always a darting back and forth like a cuckoo in a clock. Fair enough - but not all of us will believe that it supports big principle.

At the end of the day, those who believe that rationality plus morality is a more comfortable location than rationality plus law are the winners. I'd rather face my maker on that basis. I am a fairly simple person. The key issue for me is priorities. It seems moral to me to first treat people who have completed punishment equally and only then to look at giving new rights to those still in prison. The current version of liberalism supports the opposite. Serving a sentence? Fine. Past crime? Put steel bars on the windows. I don't go along with that at all although it is the current way. I like the fact that I make no money out of my position. It's real.

First, it's not exactly true to say that the judiciary is subject to the will of Parliament. The judiciary acts within the constitution. Now, it's arguable whether the constitution itself is entirely subject to the will of Parliament - something that is rarely tested nowadays - but since we have a common law system, much of the law does not stem from Parliament in the first place, and even where it does, the Acts are sometimes consolidation acts that state the common law position rather than creating something new. (Murder is a good example. And until 1968, theft was a common law offence, despite the Larceny Act 1916) We explain this away by saying that Parliament could invent something new if it wanted to, but is content not to interfere with the common law. Anyway, it is not Parliament that appoints judges, nor can it dismiss them except in some very unusual circumstances involving High Court judges following impeachment.

I did say "subject to the laws of Parliament" rather than "to the will of Parliament". While there is common law, common law isn't the only law. Governments which are formed after elections make plenty of law which courts use to convict. The Coalition is concerned about the sheer amount of it. As you say, even common law could be, and is, replaced by elected representatives. Furthermore, while it was broad legislation that I had in mind, there is also a legal framework in which courts must operate.

Whether you can link individual electoral votes and legislation, I very much doubt it. What is voted upon in Parliament is never (I think I can be that specific) what has been voted upon in an election. Even if there is a piece of legislation proposed by the winning party, it changes very much when the detail is applied and amendments are voted on.

I wouldn't wish to link individual electoral votes to legislation although that in principle isn't impossible. I wouldn't want to dissociate electoral votes from legislation. Your deliberate choice of the word "individual" suggests that you are troubled by the point I made. I feel that you want here for reasons of expediency to represent prisoners as only having individual rights and not to present them as also seeking rights pertaining to a group. You might well be able to twist the legal arguments in that direction but it doesn't work very well from the political angle. The right is to representation and with governments formed on the basis of total outcome. That is how laws are permitted to be made. The alternative is to say that the electorate is entirely irrelevant to the making of legislation which is not the case in a representative democracy. Of course, Governments do other things too.

Second, it is not helpful to think of prisons as 'the place where the law-breakers are'. It's easy to do, of course, and it's comforting to some to think "well, I'm not like them in there". But every day most of us come into contact with active law-breakers (that scruffy bloke on the tube, or that City type, or that sweet little old lady) or with others who have criminal records - but we never realise it. They vote.

I do not describe prisons as being "where the law breakers are", and never have done, although everyone in prison has broken the law. I have particularly drawn attention to law breakers in society at large - in the system, on the high street, in a home near you, in the future or the past. Some have been punished or will be punished and some will get away with it. My point here is precisely the same as to a recent earlier poster and not far from yours but my conclusion is completely different. It is a weak liberalism that seeks to blur the lines between a person who is undergoing punishment now and one who isn't; then says that the one being punished deserves more rights; and adds that those who have been punished either by way of past imprisonment or a fine should be treated by society as requiring further punishment through formal scrutiny and unequal treatment.

Third, the numbers are interesting. There are currently about 75,000 convicted prisoners. Divided equally among the 650 constituencies that's 115 per constituency. (In reality in would not be an even spread, with the majority being urban.) The effect of these votes would be minimal, unless there was a rash of tight marginals - and that's assuming that there's a 100% prisoner turnout (my feeling is that many fewer prisoners are likely to vote than in the outside group).

I am afraid that your numbers are purely speculative. I could spend the next hour citing examples of seats that were marginal and are not now marginal or vice versa. Boundaries change, the party politics change, there are substantial differences in by-elections, there are elections with very low turnout; the prison population could increase; and it could rocket with widespread political revolt.

Fourth; on the whole, prisoners don't carry grudges against 'society'. Some carry grudges against the police (often a particular police station, or even "that DS ...") but usually they're pretty ordinary people - not always very bright - but with the same sort of concerns as most people. Some of them would like to vote, and the most senior court we recognise says that our current ban isn't lawful in its present form. Our reaction is to threaten to ignore the court (we won't in the end) and say that the thought of prisoners voting makes us physically sick. Who're the grown-ups here?

You might have evidence about prisoners in the round and how they tend to consider society. I haven't seen it. I can provide evidence of one person's view as it is mine. I have come very close indeed to voting for what would be in the worst interests of all, including me, because of the way I have found the system to be towards me. I would race to do so if I were a prisoner. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind there whatsoever. I hate this bloody country and have done so since 2000 or even 1995.

And I think you will find that there are many ordinary young mothers and pensioners who would do the same. "Protest vote" is a phrase that is understood by every adult in the country. The idea that prisoners would be happy with it is bizarre beyond belief. I might add that while I feel the police often leave much to be desired, I am personally far more against lawyers, politicians, chief executives, directors, financiers, and a significant section of the population though far from all. That places me in the majority.

[Flosshilde]

Many of my reasons are in post 158. Additionally, I don't think that you can rightly have influence coming into the executive and the legislature from those who have been punished by the judiciary. It is cutting across all the usual, rational, recognisable, lines. [etc]

Again I ask - why is it that perfectly respectable, civilised countries (and some that aren't) manage to allow prisoners to vote without collapsing? You (and others - Mandryka & Simon included) haven't answered this.