Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18157566


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


While this article is about the UK, do you think that prisoners should be given the right to vote?

Should it be crime specific? (Not giving it to murderers, but giving it to less erious crimes etc)

Should it be time specific? (They will be released in time for the parliament they vote for to come to be in power that term)

Should they not have it at all, forgoing their right to participate in society because they have committed a crime? Or does participation via voting allow them to reintegrate themselves into society more?

What are you thoughts? Yes or no? And why...

I don't think prisoners should have the right to vote. Prison is there to keep them away from the rest of society, because they don't deserve to be part of the rest of society.

Though I think the right to vote should be earned as well....

Honestly, the feeling here is it doesn't matter. It feels as though the polemic is over whether or not someone has the 'legal' right to do something, and this could harken back to what we were discussing about gay marriage. Some subscribe (more or less) to convictions, and to the united (more or less) corpus of 'others' (more or less) who hold to (more or less) these same (more or less) views ...

Yes, that last paragraph was non-sens, but so is the issue. As is much of contemporary politics and many causes which try to champion a particular 'idea' of justice without considering 'Justice' in and of itself. If anyone can tell me what ce dernier is, I would be enthusiastic about the ensuing discussion.

It could be said that there is very little 'politics' in it. Rather, and perhaps more precisely, very little (to no) statesmanship. The unfortunate circumstances, the ideological clashes of the Century XX, have resulted in some incredibly deeply ingrained 'convictions' which are, to this simple mind, based on false premises and corrupted logic. The first of these is that we live in a democracy. It is commonly assumed that free elections insure democracy. How so ? When for election upon election, we see the same names on ballots, in whichever state, we see the same persons holding the same and/or a variety of offices in combination or apart, we see political 'careers' (here I recall that one of the foundations of 'democracy' is to rule and in turn to be ruled) built over years of making and breaking alliances with contemporaries who are playing the same strategy game, the marketing (PR) of candidates whose names are more like commercial brands (symbolic identities) than identities of persons who take living, personal responsibility in the representation of their constituents. Politics, as it were, is divorced from ethics and morality, effectively eliminating any consideration of 'Justice' in the interest of 'economics'. Ah... but for that ...

... a depressing majority, content to live in a democracy where personal responsibilities to others (and these being basic ethical considerations, in many cases) get delegated off to the state (an entity as conceptual as any distant god -- see above), at the same time discontent because that self-same state betrays that ephemeral egotism which influences those flimsy convictions they believe they hold. One, the individual, convinced of his personal, separate, 'liberty' (another very abused idea) desires neither to rule nor to be ruled, justifying his/her political investment duly honoured by a brief passage at the polls or a financial contribution/endorsement to a 'brand'. Choices, insomuch as a choice there be, made according to limited, if not misleading information.

Is this democracy ? Perhaps if we enjoyed true democracy, there would be far fewer prisoners to regret and reclaim the 'right' to vote. Far fewer causes to champion, far fewer crises of crises of crises, ad infinitum ...

Please do not be deceived - this philosopher participates, votes, pays taxes & surrenders to electoral duty in the optic of conviviality. And this philosopher extends no expectation to the elected or the defeated, reminding them that the only cause to champion is that of ethics and morality, from which Justice, in measure, cometh.

So, until such a time as we cannot govern ourselves and look to that tangled up mess of bureaucratic pan-buggery for governance ... it just really doesn't matter to whom we extent or deny pernicious privileges. It is just another nebulous polemic ; just another tree that hides the forest.

~A/O

ren wrote: I don't think prisoners should have the right to vote. Prison is there to keep them away from the rest of society, because they don't deserve to be part of the rest of society.

Since we're not in a situation where your second point is under discussion I will question your first

What if your sentence is a month?

But more so prisoners are only those criminals who have been found guilty...

There are numerous people who commit crimes and are never found out about... (I look to everyone reading this) so are we all perhaps not as guilty as the ones that have happened to have been caught...

What about laws that we view as being morally unjustifiable? The failed war on drugs is a great example

Should we be reprimanded for harming no one? Should that then mean that we are therefore unfit to vote?

In my opinion once you have been sentenced you lose certain human rights and one of them is the right to vote.

Seraph Arel wrote: In my opinion once you have been sentenced you lose certain human rights and one of them is the right to vote.

So when, in the UK, in 1993 you could be imprisoned for having homosexual sex with another person when you were both 20 (Legal age of heterosexual sex: 16, legal age of homosexual sex: 21) you are to forfeit the right to vote because of that?

I'd say no, even if its a short stint. Reason being it would cost money and time, dilute the nature of the punishment, and simply they are no longer in society. Proxy them all to the warden, LOL just kidding.

I dont think they should have the right to vote while in the can. BUT once out, I think that they should be allowed to vote just like any other red blooded american. i have a couple of buddies who served some time, and the person they were when incarcerated to the people they are now is a complete 180, as they say. and we do not need to set up a permanent underclass of second class non voting citizens.

Prisoners are supposed to be second class citizens but they no longer are. Here they get luxury gyms, full NHS coverage (drugs and dentist) as well as priority for medical care. That's right, if like everyone else here you've been queing months if not years for your op, You show up when you're supposed to but it gets cancelled because a prisoner is taking your place. WHEN THEY GET THE OPPORTUNITY THEY DON'T EVEN TRY TO ESCAPE ANYMORE. This situation encourages crime instead of deterring it.

Many prisoners are allowed to vote even in Texas. Those in jail awaiting trial get to vote from jail. A misdemeanor conviction does not revoke voting rights. A convicted felon may not vote during a term of imprisonment, parole or probation. A convicted felon that's completed their sentence is allowed to vote.

This applies to Texas.

I find this reasonable and fair.