c4countdown

Murderers to be allowed to vote in parliament elections? Their victims are not able to vote, so why should they be allowed to? Or is this the natural progression of a humane society, where murderers are allowed visits from their wives, or in the case of Killer Huntley, visits from his boy friend, home from home prison cells with television etc. Priority of hospital treatment. where will it end. I am in favour of humane execution.

Suppose you've been framed and wrongly convicted for a murder by the current government and the only way to have any chance of clearing your name is if a new government was to be elected.

Mark James wrote:Suppose you've been framed and wrongly convicted for a murder by the current government and the only way to have any chance of clearing your name is if a new government was to be elected.

I did expect that reply Mark, and there has been at least one miscarriage of justice in the past. He originally cofessed to the crime, but after his execution, doubt was expressed about his guilt. As to your suggestion that an entire British Government would frame me for a crime that I did not commit, the mind boggles. I suggest that if it was deemed necessary by the Government to effect my demise, I would quietly disposed of.

Mark James wrote:Suppose you've been framed and wrongly convicted for a murder by the current government and the only way to have any chance of clearing your name is if a new government was to be elected.

And the only one who can you help you is a little boy. And his dog.

I blame the Daily Mail.

George F. Jenkins wrote: As to your suggestion that an entire British Government would frame me for a crime that I did not commit, the mind boggles. I suggest that if it was deemed necessary by the Government to effect my demise, I would quietly disposed of.

Suppose they didn't want rid of you necessarily but wanted to use your arrest as an example to others. Like say the Guillford 4 or Birmingham 6.

George F. Jenkins wrote:there has been at least one miscarriage of justice in the past

At least you've done plenty of research on this!

Back with a bang.

Anyways, the commons voted quite convincingly against this.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Anyways, the commons voted quite convincingly against this.

And so they should. No cons should ever vote. Ever. Ever ever!

Mark James wrote:

George F. Jenkins wrote: As to your suggestion that an entire British Government would frame me for a crime that I did not commit, the mind boggles. I suggest that if it was deemed necessary by the Government to effect my demise, I would quietly disposed of.

Suppose they didn't want rid of you necessarily but wanted to use your arrest as an example to others. Like say the Guillford 4 or Birmingham 6.

Mark, surely, it would be the police who would be investigating those bombings. in fact, the police were accused of the ill treatment of the defendents, and disciplinary action was supposed to be meted out to the accused officers. Also, It would be a Government Minister who would order an inquiry into the convictions of the prisoners, who were then cleared of the crimes.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Anyways, the commons voted quite convincingly against this.

And so they should. No cons should ever vote. Ever. Ever ever!

Perhaps with a bit of luck, the E.U. might expel us from their union for ignoring their order to grant killers their human rights. Or perhaps they will fine us millions of pounds to add to the millions of pounds we pour into countries like India and China that don't seem to worry about human rights.

Who is the murderess in question? I think it makes a difference if she's hot.

Matt Morrison wrote:Who is the murderess in question? I think it makes a difference if she's hot.

Sorry Matt, spelling is not one of my strong points.

George F. Jenkins wrote:Mark, surely, it would be the police who would be investigating those bombings.

I was hesitant to use those cases because, as you say it was the police. I was using the cases as an example as to why someone may want to imprison you rather than "dispose" of you.

George F. Jenkins wrote: Also, It would be a Government Minister who would order an inquiry into the convictions of the prisoners, who were then cleared of the crimes.

It would be at the behest of a Government Minister to order the inquiry. If the Government didn't want one, there wouldn't be one. Which brings us back to my original argument. If you know the Government is going to keep you in jail, you would need the right to vote, to elect a new Government to get you out.

I have struggled a bit to see the logic behind prisoners having the right to vote. Why should they have a say in the running of the prison they have no choice but to live in or of a society that they've been excluded from?

The best argument I can come up with is that when prisoners get out of jail, they are then served by (and pay taxes to) a government they didn't get the chance to vote for.

Martin Bishop wrote:I have struggled a bit to see the logic behind prisoners having the right to vote. Why should they have a say in the running of the prison they have no choice but to live in or of a society that they've been excluded from?

The best argument I can come up with is that when prisoners get out of jail, they are then served by (and pay taxes to) a government they didn't get the chance to vote for.

Good argument Martin, and perhaps now, released ex-prisoners, who want to vote and live normal lives like most law abiding people, won't stick any more knives in people, the same people who are now dead because of their actions, and who also can't vote. The killers can get on with their lives, unlike the families of their victims, who must always suffer the loss of their family members.

Clearly the solution is to give dead people the vote.

I've never really seen the logic in saying that prisoners can't vote. Obviously there are many possible penalties for a crime, including going to prison, and I don't see how, logically, whether the crime happens to result in you going to prison should exactly correspond to whether you should also be allowed to vote. It would be a massive "moral coincidence". Also, if someone is going to be in prison for less than the term of office, then obviously they will be free at some point during the relevance of that vote, and I don't see why happening to be in prison at the point when the vote was held should be of relevance. Some people might spend their lives in and out of prison but just happen to be out when there's a vote.

And that's before we get into the rights and wrongs of it.

Martin Bishop wrote:I have struggled a bit to see the logic behind prisoners having the right to vote. Why should they have a say in the running of the prison they have no choice but to live in or of a society that they've been excluded from?

Why shouldn't they? I agree on Gevin's take, the onus is on people who support the ban to explain the logic behind it. Prisoners have all kinds of other rights, why take the right to vote away from them? Why not take their other rights, such as their right to own a driving license, right to toilet access, right to live? Why is the line being drawn at the right to vote?

One argument you could make is that a criminal forfeits his rights when he breaks the rules agreed upon by society and denies other people their rights. But not everyone has actually agreed to all of these rules, not just prisoners but law abiding citizens too. For example, I know that George keeps banging on about murderers but what about prisoners whose crimes occupy a moral grey area (or are simply not immoral at all), for example, a person could be in prison because he grew cannabis in his basement for personal use and to sell to friends. Was it right to exclude this person from society?

We can never be sure that the moral foundation of certain laws have been rationally derived, so it seems the least we can do is to make a concession and let prisoners vote on matters that can effect changes in the law. Denying prisoners in particular the right to vote is dangerous if you care about not living in a totalitarian society, since they are the people whose philosophy and morality is most at odds with the current powers that be.

Prison is a punishment but it is not only that.
It should be a method of re-educating, changing attitudes and so on. Having the right to vote is only part of this.
We are not only talking about murderers either. What about single mothers who have repeatedly failed to pay for a TV licence?
What about MPs caught fiddling their expenses? If they get less than 12 months they can stay as MPs! - without a vote??
Plus, our government is taking us down this road against the EU ruling. This is wrong.

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:Anyways, the commons voted quite convincingly against this.

And so they should. No cons should ever vote. Ever. Ever ever!

Perhaps with a bit of luck, the E.U. might expel us from their union for ignoring their order to grant killers their human rights. Or perhaps they will fine us millions of pounds to add to the millions of pounds we pour into countries like India and China that don't seem to worry about human rights.

Don't believe the papers going on about the EU:

Lifted verbatim from here:

"1) This has fuck all to do with the EU this is VERY important, it is the European Court of Human Rights which was set up under the European convention on human rights which was drawn up by the council of Europe. Lots of people, including parts of the media like the Express are telling deliberate lies as part of an anti EU agenda.
2) They are not telling us we have to give the vote to all our prisoners, you are allowed to abrogate rights as part of a lawful process. What they are saying is that our indiscriminate ban is wrong. At the moment you lose the right to vote if you are in for 28 days for speeding or life for murder.
We need to change the rules so that the abrogation of the right to vote is part of proportionate sentencing. This doesn't require the Heart-rending and Gut-wrenching moral panic the media shit storm suggests but just some sensible legislation.
Oh and given that adhering to the tenets of the ECHR is part of the law of this land, it is arguable that all the MPs voting to ignore it are lawbreakers and by their own argument should lose the right to vote."

You can only vote if you are on the electoral roll. Prisoners are not if they are lifers. For those in for shorter periods of time AND are on the electoral roll, I see little harm in giving them a postal vote for their home constituency but not in favour of the whole of Wormwood Scrubs voting for the MP that covers the prison. What percentage of cons actually bother to register in any case, let alone vote? It's a storm in a slop-out...

Do prisoners pay taxes? My first instinct was that they wouldn't, since they wouldn't earn much more than pocket money from their jobs behind bars. However, if you owned a business, I guess you could still get taxable earnings from it, when it's being run in your absence.

If prisoners can pay tax, they should be allowed to vote. Just to be clear, I don't mean just those with money, I mean all of them.

Martin Bishop wrote:Do prisoners pay taxes? My first instinct was that they wouldn't, since they wouldn't earn much more than pocket money from their jobs behind bars. However, if you owned a business, I guess you could still get taxable earnings from it, when it's being run in your absence.

If prisoners can pay tax, they should be allowed to vote. Just to be clear, I don't mean just those with money, I mean all of them.

What do you mean by tax? Just income tax? The only tax I pay (afaik) is VAT.

Martin Bishop wrote:Do prisoners pay taxes? My first instinct was that they wouldn't, since they wouldn't earn much more than pocket money from their jobs behind bars. However, if you owned a business, I guess you could still get taxable earnings from it, when it's being run in your absence.

If prisoners can pay tax, they should be allowed to vote. Just to be clear, I don't mean just those with money, I mean all of them.

Most prisoners don't pay tax because the hourly pay in prisons is well below the national minimum wage. There are schemes though where prisoners are fully employed by outside businesses and so tax would apply in these cases. All prisoners however pay tax on interest in their bank accounts on the outside. Again I don't see the connection between paying your taxes and being allowed to vote (lots of people in the country don't pay taxes but can still vote), but I suppose this answers your question.

Chris Corby wrote:What percentage of cons actually bother to register in any case, let alone vote? It's a storm in a slop-out...

People have been using this point to make the case both for and against lifting the ban. Doesn't seem right to me to make the assumption since no one can actually know, plus it's a rubbish argument for not letting people vote since it can be applied to anyone you don't like, which defeats the purpose of democracy. In Ireland, 4% of prisoners are on the electoral register, which doesn't seem like a lot but voter participation is never high anyway, and it's obviously unfair to deny that 4% the right to vote just because the other 96% don't.

Martin Bishop wrote: If prisoners can pay tax, they should be allowed to vote. Just to be clear, I don't mean just those with money, I mean all of them.

Isn't the disenfranchisement permanent? So if you've served a 4-year prison sentence, you'll be banned from voting forever, but presumably you don't get an indefinite sick note from the tax system.

But yes, this does seem like a story in which media and politicians have (unusually) banded together, spinning it as a two-fingers-to-the-EU story when it's nothing of the sort, plus the Tories always like to be seen to be tough on crime no matter the logic or lack thereof. And of course our friend George can always be relied upon to buy into both of these points and proclaim loudly about them, reason be damned!

Ben Hunter wrote:

Chris Corby wrote:What percentage of cons actually bother to register in any case, let alone vote? It's a storm in a slop-out...

People have been using this point to make the case both for and against lifting the ban. Doesn't seem right to me to make the assumption since no one can actually know, plus it's a rubbish argument for not letting people vote since it can be applied to anyone you don't like, which defeats the purpose of democracy. In Ireland, 4% of prisoners are on the electoral register, which doesn't seem like a lot but voter participation is never high anyway, and it's obviously unfair to deny that 4% the right to vote just because the other 96% don't.

And using that logic, you could ban any tiny minority from voting.

It doesn't really bother me.
The parliamentary fuss surprises me a bit.
If prisoners are going to be deprived of anything, then access to drugs might be a better target, and more useful would be consistent and determined programmes of rehabilitation.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote: If prisoners can pay tax, they should be allowed to vote. Just to be clear, I don't mean just those with money, I mean all of them.

Isn't the disenfranchisement permanent? So if you've served a 4-year prison sentence, you'll be banned from voting forever, but presumably you don't get an indefinite sick note from the tax system.

But yes, this does seem like a story in which media and politicians have (unusually) banded together, spinning it as a two-fingers-to-the-EU story when it's nothing of the sort, plus the Tories always like to be seen to be tough on crime no matter the logic or lack thereof. And of course our friend George can always be relied upon to buy into both of these points and proclaim loudly about them, reason be damned!

I see that you have seen through my cunning plan Charlie, to create an interesting discussion about a topical subject. But I must insist that my post is concerned only with murderers and the right to vote, and not with petty thieves and ladies of the night etc. who would spend a few months in prison. If we obeyed the Bible's teaching of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth there should be no problem in the act of execution for murderers, So millions of religeous people must believe in it. Of course, the Bible then ruins that solution to the problem of getting rid of murderers by telling us that we must turn the other cheek to people who offend us. So we can't win that argument. My opinion is simply that if you take a life by murder, you forfeit your own. It is not the thirst for revenge, but an attempt to make life safer for law abiding people. However, the good news is, that we will get used to reading about the latest murders that seem to happen most days, and it will seem too boring to bother about. Lets turn to the football pages and read about the latest sex scandal

George F. Jenkins wrote:However, the good news is, that we will get used to reading about the latest murders that seem to happen most days

The murder rate is at a 20-year low.

Ben Hunter wrote:Again I don't see the connection between paying your taxes and being allowed to vote (lots of people in the country don't pay taxes but can still vote).

It's an argument that was used back in the day for votes for women. The connection is that taxes pay for the government to do their business. If you fund the government's plans, then you have a right to a say in what the money is spent on. It's not the only logic for giving someone the vote, but it is generally a good one, I think.

Ben Hunter wrote:Again I don't see the connection between paying your taxes and being allowed to vote (lots of people in the country don't pay taxes but can still vote).

They almost certainly pay some tax, even if it's not income tax.

Martin Bishop wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Again I don't see the connection between paying your taxes and being allowed to vote (lots of people in the country don't pay taxes but can still vote).

It's an argument that was used back in the day for votes for women. The connection is that taxes pay for the government to do their business. If you fund the government's plans, then you have a right to a say in what the money is spent on. It's not the only logic for giving someone the vote, but it is generally a good one, I think.

Should people who pay more tax have a bigger vote?

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Martin Bishop wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:Again I don't see the connection between paying your taxes and being allowed to vote (lots of people in the country don't pay taxes but can still vote).

It's an argument that was used back in the day for votes for women. The connection is that taxes pay for the government to do their business. If you fund the government's plans, then you have a right to a say in what the money is spent on. It's not the only logic for giving someone the vote, but it is generally a good one, I think.

Should people who pay more tax have a bigger vote?

They already do. It's called bribery.