UK MPs to vote on three options for prisoner voting - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20381222[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]Ministers will give Parliament another vote on whether to give prisoners the vote this week, the BBC understands.[/B] A government source has told the BBC that MPs will be given a series of options on Thursday. Friday is the deadline for Britain to comply with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that the current blanket ban on prisoners voting is unlawful. The Ministry of Justice said it would not comment on a leak. The BBC's Political Correspondent Carole Walker said she understood a draft bill would set out three options: • Votes for prisoners who have been imprisoned for four years or less. • Votes for prisoners who have been imprisoned for six months or less. • No votes for prisoners at all. Our correspondent says the legal implications of flouting the ECHR ruling would be made plain to MPs but for legal reasons ministers will not say which option they back. [B]'Clear' right[/B] In February 2011 the Commons voted overwhelmingly against giving votes to any prisoners and there is a risk that this week's vote could set up another clash with the ECHR. Last month David Cameron told the Commons: "No-one should be under any doubt - prisoners are not getting the vote under this government". Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, who replaced Ken Clarke in a reshuffle in September, said last month Parliament had a "clear" right not to accept the ECHR ruling. But he added there would be "consequences" for the UK's position in Europe if MPs chose to defy the judgement. Attorney General Dominic Grieve has previously warned that defying the Strasbourg court could be seen "as a move away from out strict adherence to human rights laws". The ECRH ruled in 2005 it was a breach of human rights to deny prisoners a vote. The court said it was up to individual countries to decide which inmates should be denied the right to vote from jail, but that a total ban was illegal.[/quote]

It should be based on their crime, not how long they've been in prison surely.

Prisoners are still citizens, no?

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38493842]It should be based on their crime, not how long they've been in prison surely.[/QUOTE] that would be incredibly difficult and time consuming to determine. doing it based on time cuts alot of potential waste.

[QUOTE=yumyumshisha;38493863]Prisoners are still citizens, no?[/QUOTE] No they're scum, subhuman scum

[QUOTE=Bobie;38493869]that would be incredibly difficult and time consuming to determine. doing it based on time cuts alot of potential waste.[/QUOTE] surely the quickest method is to let all of them vote?

I hope they let some prisoners vote instead of going hurr human rights rulings don't matter when we disagree with them

[QUOTE=Coffee;38493986]surely the quickest method is to let all of them vote?[/QUOTE] of course, but i'm speaking within realistic terms here. democracy and common sense are not synonymous

I dunno about this, I don't see the point of prisoners voting when they have no chance of release before the candidate's term is over. For those who have short sentences, fine, they'll get to vote on who will be in charge when they get out.

I don't really understand why they can't vote. Make them feel responsible for the society they live in.

[QUOTE=smurfy;38494013]I hope they let some prisoners vote instead of going hurr human rights rulings don't matter when we disagree with them[/QUOTE] People with minors such as theft etc should be allowed to vote but I don't see how rapists or murderers etc should be allowed to influence the way things plan out. [editline]18th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;38494051]I don't really understand why they can't vote. Make them feel responsible for the society they live in.[/QUOTE] They don't live in society though, they live in prison.

Maybe they should have full voting rights so politicians see more negative sides to stupid laws.

I don't see the point. It's only 82,000 people. Refusing them the right to vote is practically pointless. Those that are deemed insane or unhinged can't vote anyway.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;38494608]I don't see the point. It's only 82,000 people. Refusing them the right to vote is practically pointless. Those that are deemed insane or unhinged can't vote anyway.[/QUOTE] Equality isn't about the numbers. That's kinda the entire point.

If prisons are controlled by the government then it kinda would matter to them who's in charge

If they break the laws of this country they shouldn't be allowed to vote on how they're made. While in prison they shouldn't be allowed to vote but once they have left prison they should be allowed to vote again.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;38498594]If they break the laws of this country they shouldn't be allowed to vote on how they're made.[/QUOTE] No one votes on how laws are made.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38493842]It should be based on their crime, not how long they've been in prison surely.[/QUOTE] Well to be honest, considering how long they're in for is dictated by the crime I'd say it's fine.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;38498594]If they break the laws of this country they shouldn't be allowed to vote on how they're made. While in prison they shouldn't be allowed to vote but once they have left prison they should be allowed to vote again.[/QUOTE] What about people who voted against a law? Say if somebody voted against criminalizing marijuana, and then was thrown into jail for possession of it?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;38494062]People with minors such as theft etc should be allowed to vote but I don't see how rapists or murderers etc should be allowed to influence the way things plan out.[/QUOTE] yeah I'm sure that they're going to vote for the worst possible option just to annoy people because as we all know their vote is worth ten times more than everyone else's [editline]18th November[/editline] they're not exactly gonna care about being a part of the democratic process when you're voting in favour of a violation of their basic human rights you know

Just spread them all across the 646 constituencies. That would mean 126 prisoner votes for each seat if you gave all of them the vote. It would comply with the ruling but effectively keep it the same as 126 votes is not that many.

Maybe giving them the right to vote will help in reintegrating them into society.

[QUOTE=Scrappa;38498594]If they break the laws of this country they shouldn't be allowed to vote on how they're made. While in prison they shouldn't be allowed to vote but once they have left prison they should be allowed to vote again.[/QUOTE] The majority of law is made by Judges and bound by courts, not elected officials. That's why we don't have a constitution.

I'm not entirely clued up on how these things work, but the way the vote is set up seems to be a bit biased towards not letting prisoners vote. Like, surely if 60% of the voters are sure they want prisoners to vote, but half disagree on the jail length thing, you'd end up with 40% voting for no votes at all and 60% split between four years or less and six months or less, meaning that the vote goes to not letting prisoners vote at all when really it shouldn't.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38493842]It should be based on their crime, not how long they've been in prison surely.[/QUOTE] Well their sentence is based on the crime. Or the maximum and minimum sentence anyway. I'd say the UK essentially has three levels of prison sentences depending on the nature of the crime. Six months and under. Four years and under Above four years It's kinda in line with what most nations have. Honestly as far as prisoners and voting in the UK goes, I think that they're a bit lax to allowing them to vote, because they never underwent a fairly brutal revolution in the past century (or last) where the law was being abused precisely in the way to stop large amounts of people from voting, by getting improsoned.

[QUOTE=Bobie;38494028]of course, but i'm speaking within realistic terms here. democracy and common sense are not synonymous[/QUOTE] indeed. they are antonyms.