Informed_Debate's profile . Informed_Debate group posts
 |
| Lex_Magister |
A little hiccup may occur in the forthcoming elections if selected prisoners are not allowed to vote!
Will they form their own political party? 'Con'serve'r'us'……..
As with the logic of health and safety 'Don't let it happen, just in case', Human rights seem to be 'Let it happen, just in case'.
Is it right that selected prisoners should vote?
| 8 Feb 10, 3:41 PM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs  |
Anyone stupid and/or antisocial enough to be in prison shouldn't get a vote. International man of mystery | |
| 8 Feb 10, 7:35 PM JustPlainOldKinky UK(DA), 3 yrs |
I couldn't hve put it better myself. | |
| 10 Feb 10, 8:41 PM tom_tom UK(PO), 6 yrs  |
I'd probably ban serious offenders (say anyone sentenced to 2 years or more) and let minor offenders vote (by post or proxy). Da Vinci was a well known sexual deviant. You know that sketch of the naked man in the wheel? Blueprints for a rape machine. | |
| 20 Feb 10, 9:58 PM Swishy UK(BD), 7 yrs |
I think it's right.
| |
| 20 Feb 10, 10:26 PM DancesWithPussycats UK(TW), 7 yrs |
When it comes to letting people have a say in decisions that affect your life, would you rather they were clever and honest or stupid and dishonest? International man of mystery | |
| 20 Feb 10, 10:35 PM Ceptable UK(B), 4 yrs |
In terms of the OPs question, I think that while we don't have any criteria, other than age, to get the vote in the first place - we may as well let prisoners have a say. After all whilst they have perhaps demonstrated a certain lack of intelligence and understanding by getting caught, they're certainly no worse in terms of understanding and interest than a whole load of the population on the outside. And who knows, maybe 0.00000001% of them will develop some sense of social responsibility as a result and actually become a better person. | |
| 20 Feb 10, 11:19 PM Swishy UK(BD), 7 yrs |
I'd take a guess that it'll be a much higher percentage than that but very small in comparison to the prison population all the same. I wasn't looking to engage much in the comments though. It seems on the surface to be a fairly lighthearted thread. More of a vote in itself than a debate so I cast mine. | |
| 20 Feb 10, 11:59 PM Ceptable UK(B), 4 yrs |
| |
| 21 Feb 10, 2:14 AM AnEnglishMaster UK(ME), 4 yrs |
By definition, crime is "anti-social" - so why should a criminal be thought of as being responsible enough to play a full part in society, as is implied in the entitlement to vote? Furthermore, the franchise is part of civil liberties - and a criminal has been an opponent of all that is civil, and as a result has lost his/her liberty. It seems to me that, by definition, he/she has lost their right to participate fully in the things which are a common entitlement to the mass population. Imprisonment is MEANT to be a curtailing of what the law-abiding others can take for granted. It is intended to be a loss, a deprivation - if you keep giving back to the criminal what imprisonment is *supposed* to deprive them of, where is the deterrent? English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon | |
| 21 Feb 10, 3:13 AM Lex_Magister UK(M), 7 yrs |
If the vote was only being allocated to prisoners who were serving a minimal sentence, then it would be interesting to see what actual crimes carry that sentence. the age group that is more likely to commit that type of crime and what percentage had drug related problems…… I think if they were to actually ask the selected prisoner would they want the vote, then they should heavily emphasise the 'V' and the 'T' ! There would be no need for the construction of polling booths nor would there be any disruption to the daily running of the prisons due to the management of voting inmates. All votes maybe cast from the comfort of their cells as prisoners are able to text vote using their own mobile phones…….. As I type I reach out my hand, so as you read, you are then touched. |
