Prisoner's shouldn't get a vote.

I have no problem with prisoners getting the vote, as long as they vote for candidates in their 'home' constituencies.

 

Postal votes, obviously! 

Agreed   We need to draw the line here or lose all power to govern ourselves.

As long as prisoners aren't allowed to stand for parliament, we should be OK. 

If you get sent to jail then you have obviously been found guilty of a crime of some sort. So while serving your time you have no right to be part of your community. SO NO

IMO, convicted prisoners do not deserve the right to vote.

I've been looking at the European convention on Human Rights. Articles 1 to 18 form the core of the convention, but there are a lot more Articles in the convention which are more to do with the set up of committess and the Court of Human Rights.

 

But tucked away is this:

 

Article 60

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party.

 

A High Contracting Party are the official representatives of each member state. That would seem to give the right to individual countries to have laws which override what is included in the Convention. So why doesn't the UK government use Article 60 to deal with this?

But the prison is classed as their home address (and some have no other) which would mean with the thousands of prisoners they could have a major effect on elections. Besides this has come down to who makes the law.

 

Problem is the lib dem red line was not withdrawing from ECHR so the coalition would not hold if it was attempted. I am not sure if Cameron would risk that. Although if standing up to Europe cost him the coalition he might accually get enough votes to have a working majority. 

Prisoners shouldnt get to vote

Human Rights? The prisoners obviously couldn't be bothered with other people's human rights when they did their crime, presumably. Why the heck should their human rights be considered in regards to voting while they are doing their time?

Is this a first past the post or an AV poll?

I think its time the UK flexed a few muscles re human rights and this looks like a good issue to start with.  Has anyone seen the 'guy next door' benefitting from this statute?  I've only ever seen

prisoners benefit.  Here in Scotland they have taken us to the cleaners on more than one occasion - and tried on many more.  I voted to tell ECHR to go take a flying one.

My daughter uses a postal vote, as she is away at University.

I don't see why prisoners couldn't be classed as in a similar situation.

Those with no fixed abode don't get a vote anyway, but I'd be happy for those unfortunate enough to have been in that situation, before their sentence, to use the prison address. I'm sure it's a very small minority, in that situation.

 

I don't have the same antipathy towards Europe as you appear to have, but would fight against any attempt to change our laws, if I was strongly against it.

 

I don't think any person being convicted would have losing their right to vote anywhere near the top of their minds, but I see no problem with them keeping that right, and think it could be a small help in the rehabilitation process, for some. 

It's a storm in a teacup. IMO it doesn't matter whether prisoners have a vote or not. One suspects that anti-Europe activists have thought of more subtle arguments than their previous square banana material.

I have to admit I have a problem with people nobody has elected telling people we have elected to do the job of running the country they MUST bring in certain laws particularly when those elected MP's have already voted by more than 10 to 1 against doing just that.

As I understand it, the people we elected, elect judges to serve in the court.

When you are convicted of a crime,you lose all rights to particpate in society, This is how it should be.

What is the point of giving these people the vote?

How exactly is this a good thing?

Why should rapists, paedophiles, con merchants and thieves be given suffrage?

I see prisons as being part of our society and the vast majority of prisoners will be rejoining the outside, at some point.

 

I'm not sure what good it does to deny them the vote, whereas I feel it could do them some good, if they start taking an interest in politics and how society works.

It's called punishment.

 

Want to mollycuddle them?

 

Why not keep the yobs on the income support too and go the whole hog 

And prisoners are no part of society in my eyes.

 

No  we appointed one judge (not elected) each country picks one, foreign judges should not be overruling British democracy. Our own courts cannot force a change in the law so why should a foreign court. I didn't write the next paragraph but it is true. 

 

"The European court has 47 members, 20 of whom have no prior judicial experience.
The court’s ‘one country, one judge’ rule means Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Andorra each have a seat despite their combined populations being smaller than that of the London borough of Islington."

 

We didn't elect the judges, the people we elected didn't either so the judges have no business forcing MP's to make laws they want.  Particularly when more than 10 to 1 MP's don't want said law.

I'm sorry Blizzie but if someone has taken a life, has raped or murdered someone they are opting out of society.

Therefore they do not deserve to have any privileges at all otherwise no punishment would have been served.

And as for the idea that it may do good for them to learn about society,well with respect that is very doubtful. Sorry I hate disagreeing with you because mostly our views are similar,

Mixed opinions, I'm quite happy for prisoners on sentences of less than five years get the vote, because it might be just 'bad timing' that they don't get to vote, while another prisoner arrested for the same thing, does.  However, for crimes demanding sentences over five years I'm quite happy for prisoners not to get the vote.

Why five years?

 

Why are they in prison?

Most violent assaults are under five.

Indeed! My ten month old grandson stuck nut on my nose earlier today.

Bad timing and the victim won't be able to vote. They'll be in hospital.

Why five years? I don`t understand your reasoning. 

 

Human rights for paedophiles, rapists and murderers. lol. How can anyone not laugh at such idiocy? Tell ECHR to stuff it if they don't like it is my opinion.

Har har! My rabbits,budgie and my nieces kitten should be locked up for violent assault.Actually they could probably vote better than  some humans...

Oh and seeing what we non prison  voters have voted for is rather crap really.

Those of them who did vote!!!!! Do we think the prisoners would have a better turn out?

They're a disaster but we didn't vote for them they squirmed in on a technicality.

One judge is elected, out of three candidates, from each state, by the Parliamentary Assembly.

 

"The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) consists of a number of individual representatives from each member State, with a President elected each year from among them for a maximum period of three sessions. The balance of political parties within each national delegation must ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their national parliaments."

 

The first criteria used for selecting candidates states - 

“The judges shall be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for
appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence”.

Your quoted paragraph only appears on various African websites, which say that they are quoting a Daily Mail article.

Nothing comes up for the Daily Mail though, so it must have been disappeared.

 

No it isn't.  There's 648 mps in the UK.  So 234 is actually a minority of our elected mps.  

It is from daily mail I had no idea it was on afican websites (I don't even know any) but it hasn't dissapeared you can read the rest of the article here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ml?ito=feeds-newsxml

Beggars belief that the EU is moaning about this issue when there are countries that are still doing far more serious stuff to prisoners than just allowing them a vote.

Hey, it's fine to disagree with me, honest! 

 

If prisoners had always had the right to vote, I just can't see that that would be one of the privileges that people would be demanding that they lose.

 

I know it is called a 'right', but I also see it as a responsibility, and maybe making them think more about responsibilities would be a good thing.

 

As I said, I don't think many prisoners are clamouring for this right, and I'm not really that bothered if they don't get it.

I think this is more about sticking two fingers up to the Court of Human Rights, really!