Ukip

Mr._Pricklepants

Sampong wrote: »

Graham already expanded on that point, saying that liberties affecting wider society should removed.

Yes, I noticed Graham backed down from his blanket statement that you lose your human rights;

Graham_Devon wrote: »

In my mind, as soon as you remove or break someone elses human rights, which most prisoners will have done, you lose yours, and that includes the vote.

To something vague 'where it affects wider society'

The thing is, you either subscribe to the whole package of human rights for all citizens....or you don't.
It's not about picking and choosing the ones you'd like to allocate to certain population groups.

Yes, I also get deeply frustrated and annoyed by clerics using human rights legislation to avoid deportation or other scum using European Human Rights courts for lenier sentencing.

But on the other hand, I realise it's a price to pay to live in a free society. Reneging on human rights and civil liberties is a slippery slope. Now it's the prisoners, and it's popular (bad people should suffer).
Next time it may affect you.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

It is wrong to harm others, other wrongs don't magically change things. People make mistakes and people do terrible things but neither of these justifies society giving up on the virtues of hope and forgiveness; people can change and we should embrace that.

I think we do embrace that, but i'd be very open to my mindset being changed as I only take my thoughts from a personal viewpoint.

I think if we didn't embrace these things we wouldn't give them back after a time of repent.

Embracing the virtues of hope and forgiveness, in my mind is exactly what we do when we release that person from prison and introduce them to society again, giving them back all the privileges they had before they entered prison.

It's only while in prison, while they are removed from society that their societal rights are also removed, and in this instance that means the vote.

For those that never leave prison, I guess its another discussion. I still believe the vote should be removed, probably more so considering the level of crime they would have had to comit to serve their entire life in prison. It would be a pointless vote anyway in harsh reality.

Graham_Devon

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?

They haven't lost any basic human rights.

Having the vote is not a basic human right. The EU have protocols for the right to vote. But that is outside of rights.

Basic human rights are, amongst others surrounding aliens and war:

- Right to live your life
- Protection from torture
- Protection from slavery, servitude
- Right to a fair trial
- Right to privacy
- Freedom of thought and expression
- Freedom of association and assembly
- Right to marry or be married
- Right to effective remedy
- Protection from discrimination
- Right to liberty and security
- Right to have protection of these rights

All these rights are protected for prisoners.

I never backed down on anything. You stated I wished for human rights to be removed. I stated this isn't the case at all. I've not implied any of the above should be removed.

Similarly the raft of extra rights outside of these basic human rights I don't have issues with UNLESS we introduce new rights which impact on wider society. A vote is not a basic human right, therefore by removing the vote from a prisoner does not remove any of their human rights.

Sampong

N1AK wrote: »

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?

Probably not to the first point. To the second - yes, in conjunction with other things. Losing the right to vote may contribute to some "thinking" time for offenders. No doubt the primary incentive to reform would be to get back to a better life, but gaining back certain liberties and rights may also help with that process.

N1AK wrote: »

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?

Because I do support taking away the right of Prisoners to vote. And it's not a redundant argument is it. Remember that the recent debate was because the ECHR wanted to overrule our own legislation and restore the rights of prisoners to vote. My opinion is that that is a decision for our Government and our democracy. Not the ECHR.

N1AK wrote: »

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.

I was emphasizing the point that crime should be dealt with robustly. Clearly you want to misrepresent what I have said.

Added to that, if you give prisoners the right to vote, that then gives political parties the incentive to put policies in place which appeal to prisoners. Maybe they would campaign for more TV and Leisure activites? Hopefully that kind of malarky would end before they installed saunas.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Having the vote is not a basic human right. The EU have protocols for the right to vote. But that is outside of rights.

If it's found that the UK government have breached human rights laws then prisoners may be in line for compensation.

Sometimes it's simpler and cheaper to be pragmatic. The government could admit defeat, save millions in legal fees and avoid the extremely unpalatable potential of paying compensation to convicted criminals.

I'd imagine that the average criminal is more interested in the compensation that the vote. Why not just call their bluff?

Graham_Devon

There was a piece of research done on this a while back, I'll see if I can find it on google in a bit. But the basic principle of the research was that by giving the right to vote to prisoners, there is a greater representation of fringe, or radical parties.

The key party was the BNP which would, based on the research done, gain a large proportion of the prisoner vote. That's by no means all, but a large proportion.

How would people feel then about the right of prisoners to vote if the BNP actually started winning seats on the back of large prison populations?

It, to me, appears to be a genuine concern and I can see why the research led to that conclusion. I don't want to stereotype and that's not what I'm doing, but just as Scot's are more likely to vote Labour for various reasons, prisoners, it would appear, were more likely to vote for fringe and radical parties, which, in this country, leads to the BNP as one example.

Found one of the articles here, but I'm sure this bloke went on to compile statistics, was some time ago though: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100062616/giving-prisoners-the-vote-europe-provides-a-nice-boost-for-the-bnp/

Would those who support the vote continue to support the vote if this was the outcome? Based on the dislike of people voting for UKIP I'd find it hard to believe?

Sampong

wotsthat wrote: »

If it's found that the UK government have breached human rights laws then prisoners may be in line for compensation.

Sometimes it's simpler and cheaper to be pragmatic. The government could admit defeat, save millions in legal fees and avoid the extremely unpalatable potential of paying compensation to convicted criminals.

I'd imagine that the average criminal is more interested in the compensation that the vote. Why not just call their bluff?

OR we could get out of the EU so that they have no chance of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights for compensation..........

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

If it's found that the UK government have breached human rights laws then prisoners may be in line for compensation.

Sometimes it's simpler and cheaper to be pragmatic. The government could admit defeat, save millions in legal fees and avoid the extremely unpalatable potential of paying compensation to convicted criminals.

I'd imagine that the average criminal is more interested in the compensation that the vote. Why not just call their bluff?

If we had to pay compensation to UK prisoners because of an EU court ruling, the uproar would be a one way ticket out of the EU. There would also be other countries effected, so it would seem somewhat silly for the ECHR to go against too many peoples wishes.

IMO.

angrypirate

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we had to pay compensation to UK prisoners because of an EU court ruling, the uproar would be a one way ticket out of the EU. There would also be other countries effected, so it would seem somewhat silly for the ECHR to go against too many peoples wishes.

IMO.

ECHR arent that sensible.

Graham_Devon

angrypirate wrote: »

ECHR arent that sensible.

Maybe not. Things often have to go too far for action to be taken though, as seen with the credit crunch.