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

[Lateralthinking1]

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.

Haven't answered this.........because collapsing isn't the only point (or even the main one).

[MrGongGong]

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.
.

Thanks Lat
BUT it still doesn't account for the extreme feelings of some
I can see the arguments for and against etc
but it's not as if it will actually hurt anyone, cause the destruction of society etc etc

So , a bit like some folks extreme reactions to some art, i'm struggling to see what is SO offensive about this ?

[french frank]

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.

That particular argument seems to me, as it stands, the least valid. You cannot withhold the right to vote from anyone on the grounds that they might (mis)use it or for how they would use it. All voters may exercise their choice as they see fit for whatever reasons, for any validly nominated candidate or for none.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Lat
BUT it still doesn't account for the extreme feelings of some
I can see the arguments for and against etc
but it's not as if it will actually hurt anyone, cause the destruction of society etc etc

So , a bit like some folks extreme reactions to some art, i'm struggling to see what is SO offensive about this ?

But do you and others not see the view from many an average street? Are you not partially on that street yourselves? No one is perfect. There are very few completely law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless it is probably reasonable to say that at least a third of people still generally try to do what the system wants - work, pay taxes, comply more often than not with the law.

And what are they being told? Loans for university when there used to be grants. Few jobs available when there used to be more. No homes for the young now. Work until 68 or 70 when it used to be 60 or 65. Pay tax when those in charge pay no tax at all. Take a lower pension than what was promised. Hope that the NHS will be able to treat you in illness rather than knowing that it will. Benefits reduced as the country can't afford it. Cameras on most roads. Orwellian monitoring wherever law-abiding people go.

As you well know, that's the tip of the iceberg. Rights being stripped away from the broadly law-abiding. Equality often ignored. And here we are being asked to accept that prisoners are to get more rights? That's probably in many places a recipe for arson.

[Lateralthinking1]

That particular argument seems to me, as it stands, the least valid. You cannot withhold the right to vote from anyone on the grounds that they might (mis)use it or for how they would use it. All voters may exercise their choice as they see fit for whatever reasons, for any validly nominated candidate or for none.

Yes absolutely. I mentioned it in case the tendency was to see most prisoners as sitting cross legged on the floor patiently waiting to have their dreams fulfilled by the state. Will Santa bring me the chance to vote this year? I'd be ecstatically happy etc.

I rather hope that you would also dismiss the argument that we could introduce voting for prisoners safely because not many would vote anyway etc. That too is spurious - and it would be a very dodgy precedent to set - although it may describe how things might be, just as I have described how prisoners might well vote.

On another point, I note that 16 year olds in Jersey have the vote and those in London don't. That's ok presumably?

[Lateralthinking1]

.......It is enlightened Italy that we are being asked to follow, isn't it?

Voting age in Italy - Lower House 18. Upper House 25.

[french frank]

I rather hope that you would also dismiss the argument that we could introduce voting for prisoners safely because not many would vote anyway etc. That too is spurious - and it would be a very dodgy precedent to set - although it may describe how things might be just as I have described how prisoners might well vote.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'safely'?

I would personally conjecture that prisoners would vote exactly the same way as they would vote under 'normal' circumstances (and a large number of those would vote how their parents voted). I'm sure that not everyone who's in prison feels they shouldn't be there, that they are the victims of systemic injustice. Many want to learn to read and write, they engage in the creative arts. They aren't a different species of humanity.

All the ECHR is saying is that there should not be a 'blanket ban' for those in prison, that some effort should be made to sort out the different levels of 'crime'.

[Flosshilde]

Haven't answered this.........because collapsing isn't the only point (or even the main one).

So what is the main point?

In a post above you say " Rights being stripped away from the broadly law-abiding. Equality often ignored. And here we are being asked to accept that prisoners are to get more rights?" - so you think that because we - the population - are losing rights (but you don't specify which) a small part of the population should be denied a specific right? Rather a strange logic.

[Lateralthinking1]

So what is the main point?

In a post above you say " Rights being stripped away from the broadly law-abiding. Equality often ignored. And here we are being asked to accept that prisoners are to get more rights?" - so you think that because we - the population - are losing rights (but you don't specify which) a small part of the population should be denied a specific right? Rather a strange logic.

Some might see it as strange logic but I do believe in making a sharp distinction between the rights of those currently undergoing a punishment and those not undergoing a punishment. Most people do. I have yet to see an argument from those who support prisoners votes as to why this is so important to them or society at large. Why should we give two hoots that prisoners vote in Zimbabwe? Ask Petroc where he would prefer to spend several days. In that system or the current British system? There is also an absolute silence from your constituency about current barriers to rehabilitation. Theirs is a liberalism that knows how to provide a knee-jerk reaction against conventional conservatives but has no argument against someone advocating conservatism on this issue and liberalism elsewhere. It says "sorry but this is as liberal as things can be". Well, I'm sorry but it is nothing of the kind.

I also think that a society that is (a) efficient and (b) regarded as fair to the majority of citizens is likely to be sufficiently sound to grant additional rights to those undergoing punishment and to other people who are not in the majority. Other societies are not likely to be. For example, you will find me arguing for the rights of Jewish people far more strongly than the majority of people on this forum. I don't think that they were specifically responsible for the economic chaos in the Weimar Governments of Germany. There was though a sense among many that they often had life too good and were overly influential. That had not been the case when economic stability was being enjoyed. So I think you have to be very wary of pushing people too far at a time of economic crisis. Prisoners could easily be made into scapegoats by new Governments elected to sort out the mess by whatever means. And that could be easily carried forward into a draconian regime that would make criminals of almost everyone virtually overnight.

You are approaching rights in a directional way. This way more rights, that way fewer rights. That is the basis on which you suggest I have a strange logic. In practice, rights are a balance whether we like it or not. The majority of the residents of Hackney were entirely comfortable with a Council promoting non-Christian festivals until it decided that there shouldn't be a Christmas tree. A backlash occurred to the extent that this year the Council is spending money on Christmas too. Only a balance is acceptable.

The legalisation of certain sexual behaviour was rightly won on the basis of human rights arguments at a time when the economy was reasonably stable and the majority of people were enjoying the rights to greater sexual freedom. It would not have been as easily accommodated otherwise and may not have happened at all. And if sexual behaviour is generally argued on the grounds of human rights, human rights in that sense do not ordinarily apply to prisoners. There are constraints on those imprisoned for non-sexual crime in rights to be sexually intimate with their partners even in marriage. So prisoners are a different category. And the distinctions in the rights that apply to them are not necessarily related to the crime. Mainly they concern activities required to support their right to live. So it isn't as if the absence of a vote is an exclusive omission. There are no doubt other examples too.

And we live in times of economic crisis where people are not able to enjoy what they previously enjoyed through hard earned state contributions and service provision. The concerns are widespread. The perception is also rightly of a more Orwellian state - the cameras in refuse collection boxes and so on. Peoples' footprints being measured in every shopping arcade. You might say that not to give prisoners votes is unpleasant and plays to instincts of resentment. I say that it is in everyone's interests to be more real.

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'safely'?

I would personally conjecture that prisoners would vote exactly the same way as they would vote under 'normal' circumstances (and a large number of those would vote how their parents voted). I'm sure that not everyone who's in prison feels they shouldn't be there, that they are the victims of systemic injustice. Many want to learn to read and write, they engage in the creative arts. They aren't a different species of humanity.

All the ECHR is saying is that there should not be a 'blanket ban' for those in prison, that some effort should be made to sort out the different levels of 'crime'.

While "safely" is my word, it is intended to convey one of the arguments put forward in support of prisoners' votes. That is, their votes might not be sufficiently "dangerous" to make one iota of difference in terms of outcomes of elections and legislation introduced by elected representatives. The argument exposes what is happening at the ECHR as a game of legalise. For all of the mock outrage about those who would deny prisoners voting rights, the right to influence outcomes is clearly being presented as a side issue. Prisoners must have the right to speak but it doesn't matter at all if it counts for nothing. I find that disingenuous.

You have used the word "conjecture" in your second paragraph. In fairness, I will accept that some prisoners are no doubt as you describe. However, as you say, it is "conjecture". That is significant. If I were a prisoner, one might think that with my university degree and what not that I would wish to focus as much as possible on the cerebral or artistic. Possibly I might. The far greater likelihood is that I would do nothing of the kind. A combination of alienation from the system, a feeling of being overwhelmed and just not seeing any future. The greatest likelihood is that I would vote for the BNP in anger and immediately look for a rope.

It is for others to decide whether that makes me highly unusual. Beyond that, they need to ask themselves if the socio-economic background of the average prisoner suggests that he would be more or less likely to behave in that way. I think it would be more. The only difference is likely to be that far from thinking voting in that way was a matter of deep regret and symbolic of personal abyss, many prisoners would think of it as cause for celebration. Of course, a number are black and would not vote on those lines.

It is though entirely to be expected that heated discussions in prisons at election times will lead to racial conflict in prisons. Prison officers will find it difficult to control if they are able to control it at all. And if society is damaged by prisoners on the rampage, either on the grounds that it has been permitted to occur or more directly, then it will blame someone heavily and probably very irrationally. The ECHR isn't understood by Joe Public. I can't think of anything more likely to lead to a swift exodus from the EU.

[Flosshilde]

Some might see it as strange logic but I do believe in making a sharp distinction between the rights of those currently undergoing a punishment and those not undergoing a punishment. Most people do. I have yet to see an argument from those who support prisoners votes as to why this is so important to them or society at large. Why should we give two hoots that prisoners vote in Zimbabwe? Ask Petroc where he would prefer to spend several days. In that system or the current British system? There is also an absolute silence from your constituency about current barriers to rehabilitation. Theirs is a liberalism that knows how to provide a knee-jerk reaction against conventional conservatives but has no argument against someone advocating conservatism on this issue and liberalism elsewhere. It says "sorry but this is as liberal as things can be". Well, I'm sorry but it is nothing of the kind.

Why shouldn't we give two hoots about Zimbabwean prisoners being able to vote?
You don't have anything to say about Australia, Canada, France or Israel.
I think that 'my constituency' (whatever that might be) has said quite a bit about rehabilitation - in fact in one of my earliest posts I said that I thought disconnecting people from civic society makes rehabilitation more difficult.

you will find me arguing for the rights of Jewish people far more strongly than the majority of people on this forum. I don't think that they were specifically responsible for the economic chaos in the Weimar Governments of Germany.

This is quite a bizarre statement - or are you conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews? & what does it have to do with prisoners voting?

Prisoners could easily be made into scapegoats by new Governments elected to sort out the mess by whatever means. And that could be easily carried forward into a draconian regime that would make criminals of almost everyone virtually overnight.

I think that is already happening. How is it an argument for denying prisoners the vote? The opposite I would have thought.

The legalisation of certain sexual behaviour was rightly won on the basis of human rights arguments at a time when the economy was reasonably stable and the majority of people were enjoying the rights to greater sexual freedom. It would not have been as easily accommodated otherwise and may not have happened at all. And if sexual behaviour is generally argued on the grounds of human rights, human rights in that sense do not ordinarily apply to prisoners. There are constraints on those imprisoned for non-sexual crime in rights to be sexually intimate with their partners even in marriage. So prisoners are a different category. And the distinctions in the rights that apply to them are not necessarily related to the crime. Mainly they concern activities required to support their right to live. So it isn't as if the absence of a vote is an exclusive omission. There are no doubt other examples too.

Are you saying that sexual relationships are a human right, denied to prisoners, so it's therefore OK to deny them another human right, that of voting? If so, you are wrong. Some prisoners are allowed home visits to enable them to maintain connections with their families, which would include enabling them to enjoy sexual contact with their partners. Some countries have facilities in prisons to allow prisoners' partners to spend time with them, including sexual contact. If that an be managed, why not voting (the latter would be a lot easier).

If that's not what you mean, what do you mean?

And we live in times of economic crisis where people are not able to enjoy what they previously enjoyed through hard earned state contributions and service provision. The concerns are widespread. The perception is also rightly of a more Orwellian state - the cameras in refuse collection boxes and so on. Peoples' footprints being measured in every shopping arcade. You might say that not to give prisoners votes is unpleasant and plays to instincts of resentment.

I think that's perfectly correct.

I say that it is in everyone's interests to be more real.

Why isn't allowing prisoners to vote 'real'?

[Lateralthinking1]

Why shouldn't we give two hoots about Zimbabwean prisoners being able to vote? Because it is completely meaningless in a regime that makes things up as it goes along. That's what it appears to have done in Petroc's case. I am not certain that I can believe votes cast by prisoners won't be doctored even in this country. Much of the system is sufficiently corrupt not to be trusted.

On rehabilitation, you do not say whether a woman of 60 should be made to find it difficult to work with elderly people because she acquired a criminal record at 19 for a minor shopping offence. That is the Blairite system. There are millions of other examples.

I didn't mention Israel or current attitudes towards Jewish people. I prefer to call them Jewish people rather than Jews. I was saying how scapegoats emanated from perceived privileges given to minorities in Germany in the 1930s at a time of economic crisis. That is not at all to deny the right to equality for all law-abiding citizens or to equate Jewish people with prisoners. But it is to say that if law abiding citizens can be on the end of venom in that way, it is to be expected that prisoners could easily be made more so, particularly under a right wing regime elected for economic reasons. This is a mouse of a liberal reform that could create a juggernaut of authoritarian backlash. As everyone is a potential prisoner, including you and other forum members, the severe implications for everyone of that backlash could far outweigh any minor gains now, if indeed prisoners' votes are any kind of gain.

I am not in favour of sexual rights to prisoners and do not consider that they apply in most cases.

On selective rights, I note that those who have not committed political crimes would have the vote while those who have wouldn't. That doesn't win over anyone to the political system but it does further alienate many from it. The proposals support the denial of the vote to young students imprisoned for unrest at demonstrations, Greenpeace protesters who occupy certain landmarks, those imprisoned for unlawful protest against racist groups, modern day versions of the Greenham Common women, and people arrested in camps outside St Pauls who are then subsequently imprisoned. They would though give the vote to muggers of 90 year olds, habitual burglars, MPs and banking chiefs who have conned the taxpayer out of millions of pounds and members of heroin gangs.

That isn't a country I am prepared to support. To my mind, the proposals are thoroughly disgraceful.

[Tony Halstead]

I have always read your posts with great interest, 'lat' and indeed I posted not too long ago requesting that you make a re-appearance on the Boards after you had been absent for a while.
In view of your more recent postings such as
‘I hate this bloody country and have done so since 2000 or even 1995.’
and
‘That isn't a country I am prepared to support’


I wonder whether you ought to consider re-locating?

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder whether you ought to consider re-locating?

1962 - 9 out of 10
1970 - 7 out of 10
1975 - 5 out of 10
1979 - 7 out of 10
1982 - 8 out of 10
1995 - 5 out of 10
2000 - 4 out of 10
2004 - 3 out of 10
2010 - 2 out of 10
2012 - 1 out of 10

The figures relate to the British system. I very much like the countryside, the BBC, some music, some of the history and the NHS. I detest virtually everything else. I regret that some might find that upsetting. Obviously I would prefer to feel differently. If you were to ask me about British people in the round, I would say that it has gone from a 9 to a 4 or a 5. A percentage point lower in each decade. In many respects, people are no different from the way they have always been but everyone has been devalued ethically to some extent by the changes to our regimes. A very significant proportion are or have become predominantly unethical.

One thing I very much question is that work is a fundamentally good thing. I was raised with a strong work ethic and on paper it should be a good thing for all. However, it is frequently clear to me that there are a lot of decent people who by nature have considerable integrity but also veer. It is in their employment that they are often required to make compromises. And it can become so natural they start to see it as reasonable. The system promotes deceit. Many are victims of systemic brainwashing.

[Barbirollians]

1962 - 9 out of 10
1970 - 7 out of 10
1975 - 5 out of 10
1979 - 7 out of 10
1982 - 8 out of 10
1995 - 5 out of 10
2000 - 4 out of 10
2004 - 3 out of 10
2010 - 2 out of 10
2012 - 1 out of 10

The figures relate to the British system. I very much like the countryside, the BBC, some music, some of the history and the NHS. I detest virtually everything else. I regret that some might find that upsetting. Obviously I would prefer to feel differently. If you were to ask me about British people in the round, I would say that it has gone from a 9 to a 4 or a 5. A percentage point lower in each decade. In many respects, people are no different from the way they have always been but everyone has been devalued ethically to some extent by the changes to our regimes. A very significant proportion are or have become predominantly unethical.

One thing I very much question is that work is a fundamentally good thing. I was raised with a strong work ethic and on paper it should be a good thing for all. However, it is frequently clear to me that there are a lot of decent people who by nature have considerable integrity but also veer. It is in their employment that they are often required to make compromises. And it can become so natural they start to see it as reasonable. The system promotes deceit. Many are victims of systemic brainwashing.

What bilge ! Your postings strike me as utterly irrational .