Ukip

Sampong

N1AK wrote: »

I couldn't be much further from a religious person if I tried but if there is one thing they teach which I wish we'd learn more from it's the importance of forgiveness. The story of Stephen, who asked god to forgive those who were stoning him to death, isn't a lesson in being too lenient but in how society is better if we believe there is good in others even when we can't see it yet.

In God I trust.

Anyone else throwing stones at me can go to the stocks.

Mr._Pricklepants

Sampong wrote: »

Depends.

Is said property obtained from proceeds of crime?

If no - fine by me.

If yes - seize the asset.

Actually the law these days has greater powers to seize assets which are obtained through the proceeds of crime, which IMO is a good thing.

I absolutely support a more robust approach to tackling crime, with tougher punishments and longer and more meaningful sentences.

I don't understand why anyone would want to give prisoners the right to vote.

Do you say prisoners should lose property rights even if it's not the proceeds of a crime? Interesting.

By all means, dish out stronger punishments and longer sentences if it fits the crime, we can agree on that.

But I don't see why prisoners should forfeit basic human rights also. Their punishment is the removal of liberty, but they still remain citizens of this country.
What other human rights do they need to give up?

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The whole idea of prison is to remove that person from society for any given period of time.

It wasn't originally and doesn't have to be. Prison 'sentences' came about in part as we moved away from corporal and shame based punishments. Sentences still tended to be very short and the 'punishment' aspect was generally focused on the heavy labour they had to endure during that time.

The better question is what is the point of the criminal justice system? There isn't a definitive answer, but generally things would be raised:

• protecting society
• punishing criminality (which also discourages it)
• reforming criminals

In my opinion removing the vote from prisoners does nothing to protect society or punish criminals; it actually hampers efforts to help reform criminals and undermines any claim that we have a universal representative democracy.

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Do you say prisoners should lose property rights even if it's not the proceeds of a crime? Interesting.

Re read my post. You will notice I said IF the property is gained through the proceeds of crime then it should be seized.

I take it that must have been a mistake on your part.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

By all means, dish out stronger punishments and longer sentences if it fits the crime, we can agree on that.

A large proportion of UKIP voters/members have that belief. They see that sentences are not tough enough. Punishment is not just to remove offenders from society, it also needs to be a deterrent. Clearly at the moment, some don't see it as much of a deterrent.

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

But I don't see why prisoners should forfeit basic human rights also. Their punishment is the removal of liberty, but they still remain citizens of this country.
What other human rights do they need to give up?

Graham already expanded on that point, saying that liberties affecting wider society should removed. The right to vote is an example of that. I see no reason why they can't continue to practice religion.

Being given the chance to rehabilitate is important too though. But we should not be getting tangled up in ridiculous human rights laws which give prisoners "this right", and "that right". Rehabilitation should be a key aspect of time spent in prison, but it should be clear that if an offended steps out of line, then the punishment will be robust.

Mr._Pricklepants

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not sure there is even such a right to "have family".

There sure is. Look it up

And tell me if you think it's a human right prisoners should have to give up.

Sampong

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

But I don't see why prisoners should forfeit basic human rights also. Their punishment is the removal of liberty, but they still remain citizens of this country.

Actually, some are not. And offenders who are not citizens of this country should be deported back to their country of origin permanently.

N1AK

Sampong wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would want to give prisoners the right to vote.

If you understood everything I said, you’d be me

The difference between you and me is when I don't understand why someone else has a different opinion to me I think it's my shortcoming because I haven't been able to understand them and their perspective properly.

Sampong

N1AK wrote: »

In my opinion removing the vote from prisoners does nothing to protect society or punish criminals; it actually hampers efforts to help reform criminals and undermines any claim that we have a universal representative democracy.

If they lose certain rights - it should give them an incentive to reform.

No point in "reforming" if you can get away with your crime with a slap on the wrist.

angrypirate

spacey2012 wrote: »

UKIP strike me as a bunch of ex-Tories who think they will do better in business without a European free market lead by a charismatic media savy mouthpiece.
What exactly they will do that will benefit the voters nobody can state.

UKIP are right wing so whilst they may not all be ex-tory, you are not wrong to say they come across like ex-tories.

UKIP dont have a problem with the European free market. They have a problem with European Parliament. If all Europe was was a free common market, UKIP wouldnt exist. UKIP want the UK to be in a position where the government can make their own laws, make their own trade agreements with other countries and set their own immigation rules. If we can maintain a free trade agreement with the EU then so much the better. We currently import more from them than we export so i would have thought its in Europes interest!

The stupidity of the European Parliament is unbelievable. Thanks to their laws we've had the following

• fire extinguishers are no longer colour coded in the UK and are now all red so all Europeans can recognise them as fire extinguishers
• ban jugs of olive in in restuarants so it all has to be quality controlled sealed labelled bottles

Right now, we are sending more and more exports to the rest of the worl and fewer to the EU. If this continues, surely it'll become a burden having to go with the EU negotiated trade agreements and not ones that favour us.

N1AK

Sampong wrote: »

If they lose certain rights - it should give them an incentive to reform.

No point in "reforming" if you can get away with your crime with a slap on the wrist.

Do you genuinely believe that anyone has decided not to commit a crime because although they were willing to risk jailtime, a criminal record etc they don't want to lose the right to vote?

Do you genuinely believe that anyone in jail is more likely to reform not because they want a better life, don't want to go back to jail etc but because they want to vote?

If you don't then why are you bothering to type a redundant argument you don't even support? If you do, then would you mind explaining what it is that makes you think it?

Trying to equate, for example, a 2 year sentence without the vote as 'real punishment' but 2 years with the ability to vote as 'a slap on the wrist' makes it look like you either haven't thought it through or don't really understand your own position to begin with.