[QUOTE=st0rmforce;32519899]yes[/QUOTE]
Do you think those inalienable human rights include the right to not be starved and used for slave labour
no, they've given up that right.
All depends on the crime they are commited, stealing or piracy, they can vote... not that much of a major crime but kidnappers, rapist, and murderers, hell fucking no.
Give them the vote, don't count them, everyone is happy.
[editline]30th September 2011[/editline]
But really I think they should get the vote during the last 5 years of their sentence.
I don't see why they can't, just because they made mistakes, (some intentionally) doesn't mean they are completely horrible people. Besides, how much sway they'll even have could have little or even a huge effect.
Perhaps to come to a consensus with people who say they shouldn't vote, perhaps they are worth half a vote?
[QUOTE=Potanis;32545136]no, they've given up that right.[/QUOTE]
How so, you haven't provided any sort of case to show that. Do yo have an argument to make, or do you believe that all you need is your opinion affirming your opinion for something to be true.
[QUOTE=darkedone02;32545166]All depends on the crime they are commited, stealing or piracy, they can vote... not that much of a major crime but kidnappers, rapist, and murderers, hell fucking no.[/QUOTE]
Based on what logical grounds? Your own subjective appeal to the various groups. This is reasoning, this isn't argument, this isn't debate, this is choosing what kind of pair of pants you're going to wear in the morning.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32547172]Give them the vote, don't count them, everyone is happy.
But really I think they should get the vote during the last 5 years of their sentence.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't be happy and neither would the prisoners who think their are taking place in a real election. Why such an strange 5 year voting period. What reasoning is there to it. It could make sense if you said something like "they are aware of the country's needs before the go into vote but they lose this with over time, someone in there for life doesn't know the needs of the county, 5 years might seems like about the right amount of time considering election season and everything." But putting out some random figure without a reason is completely meaningless.
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;32547386]I don't see why they can't, just because they made mistakes, (some intentionally) doesn't mean they are completely horrible people. Besides, how much sway they'll even have could have little or even a huge effect.
Perhaps to come to a consensus with people who say they shouldn't vote, perhaps they are worth half a vote?[/QUOTE]
Your claim is
They are not bad people
They wouldn't have a large effect
Therefore they should have half a vote
I didn't realize voting rights were based on moral character. What if they were all serial killers, should you be against it? And what if it were allowing voting rights to the degree you suggest were to have a large effect? Should you be against it? And what do these premises have to do with the conclusion? What does not being bad and not having a large effect have to do with getting half a vote? Here, I'll make your argument a bit stronger.
Prisons are full of serial kills and rapists. No exceptions. The worst people you could imagine. For whatever reason they make up 51% of the population.
The are terrible people
They have the majority
They deserve equal voting rights
[QUOTE=Pepin;32547960]
I wouldn't be happy and neither would the prisoners who think their are taking place in a real election. Why such an strange 5 year voting period. What reasoning is there to it. It could make sense if you said something like "they are aware of the country's needs before the go into vote but they lose this with over time, someone in there for life doesn't know the needs of the county, 5 years might seems like about the right amount of time considering election season and everything." But putting out some random figure without a reason is completely meaningless.
[/QUOTE]
Don't take the first bit seriously, it was a bad joke. I said the last 5 years of their sentence because, in the UK, elections are held every 4-5 years. It means that they will have been able to vote on the government that they are coming out of prison to. It doesn't make much difference to them who is in power if they aren't going to be out of prison for the next 10 years anyway.
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32525684]If prison is more like a free place to stay with free food, they'll be more likely to reoffend to get back.[/QUOTE]
+The threat of being murdered by gangs
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32548024]Don't take the first bit seriously, it was a bad joke. I said the last 5 years of their sentence because, in the UK, elections are held every 4-5 years. It means that they will have been able to vote on the government that they are coming out of prison to. It doesn't make much difference to them who is in power if they aren't going to be out of prison for the next 10 years anyway.[/QUOTE]
They should get to vote in all elections while they're in prison. It's not like the current government doesn't affect them when they're on the inside.
[QUOTE=NecroTitan;32537764]I think prisoners should have the right to vote on all issues that do not concern Taxation and Levies, because they will not pay taxes while incarcerated.[/QUOTE]
But they will affect them if and when they leave prison, and they will affect people that they know and care about (Because, you know, criminals can love and have families too)
[editline]1st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Man Without Hat;32528838]The only rights that should be kept by prisoners are their basic rights. The very core human rights that can never in a right world be taken away.[/QUOTE]
Article 21 (Of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
You can't put blanket rules on things like this, it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis during trial.
[QUOTE=catface;32585350]You can't put blanket rules on things like this, it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis during trial.[/QUOTE]
Please expand as to why. I suggest reading some of my previous posts in this thread as they give a pretty good justification as to why you can.
it doesn't seem like voting really does a lot
in my opinion i think that if someone has not obeyed the laws of a certain country they should not be allowed the same rights as citizens who have never broken the law as they chose to disrupt society and damage it, so sould these people really be allowed to say who runs the society
[QUOTE=Pepin;32592009]Please expand as to why. I suggest reading some of my previous posts in this thread as they give a pretty good justification as to why you can.[/QUOTE]
Because prisoners could be petty thiefs, armed robbers, or serial rapists. It all depends on the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. There's not an answer to everything.
Sure, why shouldn't they be able to? They still live in the country and what happens to the country is still relevant to them regardless of if they're in prison or not.
[QUOTE=catface;32603193]Because prisoners could be petty thiefs, armed robbers, or serial rapists. It all depends on the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. There's not an answer to everything.[/QUOTE]
What does murder or rape have to do when anything to do with voting? It's like saying I'm going to take your pants because you punched me in your the face. What does assault have to do with taking my pants? It is just as absurd.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32603390]What does murder or rape have to do when anything to do with voting? It's like saying I'm going to take your pants because you punched me in your the face. What does assault have to do with taking my pants? It is just as absurd.[/QUOTE]
That's a fair enough point, but I don't know if I would want people like that deciding the fate of my country.
[QUOTE=catface;32603645]That's a fair enough point, but I don't know if I would want people like that deciding the fate of my country.[/QUOTE]
People "Like that" have had their say in the way the country works many times in the past.
Contrary to popular belief, not all rapists and murderers want to see the world burn.
And they're not "Deciding the fate" of your country at all - Just having their say in how they think it should be run.
By breaking the rules of society you break your contract with the state. So you should not be allowed to vote when in jail, because your actions show you do not wish to abide by the rules of that state.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32570285]They should get to vote in all elections while they're in prison. It's not like the current government doesn't affect them when they're on the inside.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I don't see why going to prison stops you from being a citizen of your country. My post was more of a proposed middle ground between people against it and people for it.
Of course prisoners should be allowed to vote, in fact, I'd say they might be the group who MOST ought to have a say in how their government runs.
Just as an abstract circumstance; imagine someone makes a bad law that imprisons some unliked minority. If prisoners don't have the right to vote, not ONLY did the government wrongly imprison these people, but it also removed their ability to try to right this wrong within the system. Any corrupt social movement need only have a majority of those left AFTER they put all the undesirables in prison to maintain power.
Why do we have the right to vote? I'd say that a big part of it is so that if you are wronged by the system, you have a voice, you have a recourse to fix it.
Prisoners are people who have come into direct contact with the law and it's real effects. They deserve a voice in the government that put them in jail.
[editline]4th October 2011[/editline]
And the effect they have on decisions will only be proportional to how many people of a certain cause you put in prison anyways. It's not like child rape is gonna be legalized because the microscopic percentage of people (and prisoners) who rape children get the vote.
[QUOTE=RyanDv3;32623560]Of course prisoners should be allowed to vote, in fact, I'd say they might be the group who MOST ought to have a say in how their government runs.
Just as an abstract circumstance; imagine someone makes a bad law that imprisons some unliked minority. If prisoners don't have the right to vote, not ONLY did the government wrongly imprison these people, but it also removed their ability to try to right this wrong within the system. Any corrupt social movement need only have a majority of those left AFTER they put all the undesirables in prison to maintain power.
Why do we have the right to vote? I'd say that a big part of it is so that if you are wronged by the system, you have a voice, you have a recourse to fix it.
Prisoners are people who have come into direct contact with the law and it's real effects. They deserve a voice in the government that put them in jail.
[editline]4th October 2011[/editline]
And the effect they have on decisions will only be proportional to how many people of a certain cause you put in prison anyways. It's not like child rape is gonna be legalized because the microscopic percentage of people (and prisoners) who rape children get the vote.[/QUOTE]
Voting isn't just about what laws are changed. Prisoners don't pay tax so they might not take into account whether the party they are going to vote for are going to increase taxes or make massive cuts because it doesn't affect them.
[QUOTE=Benf199105;32622059]By breaking the rules of society you break your contract with the state. So you should not be allowed to vote when in jail, because your actions show you do not wish to abide by the rules of that state.[/QUOTE]
A country is not like a game where you get kicked out for "Breaking the rules". By that logic you might as well just ship them off to Australia like oldene victoriane timese.
If someone is in jail, they're still a citizen of the country, they're still affected by the laws and decisions made by politics. They should have a say in it because they and/or people they care about will be affected by it.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32627131]Voting isn't just about what laws are changed. Prisoners don't pay tax so they might not take into account whether the party they are going to vote for are going to increase taxes or make massive cuts because it doesn't affect them.[/QUOTE]
You have a point, prisoners are less aware of and effected by fiscal policy, however 1) they most likely are still able to make rational decisions, and 2) unless they've got life in prison and no possibility of parole, then these issues do effect them to some extent.
However, that's simply an example of different votership having different views on how things ought to run based on how policy effects them.
i.e. People who work in factories might want to force companies to keep producing shit at home rather than outsourcing it, whereas consumers who benefit from outsourced products may be in favor of it because it lowers prices.
That's how a democracy works, people vote for stuff that they think is right or will make their life easier. No one ever said we all had to share the same problems. Also, if you were suggesting that a inmate would vote on an issue that didn't effect him in any way just because he can, well anyone can do that, I don't see why being a prison inmate makes that any more likely.
[QUOTE=RyanDv3;32628726]You have a point, prisoners are less aware of and effected by fiscal policy, however 1) they most likely are still able to make rational decisions, and 2) unless they've got life in prison and no possibility of parole, then these issues do effect them to some extent.
However, that's simply an example of different votership having different views on how things ought to run based on how policy effects them.
i.e. People who work in factories might want to force companies to keep producing shit at home rather than outsourcing it, whereas consumers who benefit from outsourced products may be in favor of it because it lowers prices.
That's how a democracy works, people vote for stuff that they think is right or will make their life easier. No one ever said we all had to share the same problems. Also, if you were suggesting that a inmate would vote on an issue that didn't effect him in any way just because he can, well anyone can do that, I don't see why being a prison inmate makes that any more likely.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I seem to have removed part of my post without realising. I support prisoners voting, i was just presenting an arguement from the other side of the fence.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32627131]Voting isn't just about what laws are changed. Prisoners don't pay tax so they might not take into account whether the party they are going to vote for are going to increase taxes or make massive cuts because it doesn't affect them.[/QUOTE]
I actually brought that up as an argument for someone to use in a paper earlier in the thread, but it is a pretty bad argument because the entity determining the law on voting makes it impossible for [most] prisoners to pay taxes as prison is not a place where it is possible to get a job. It is not as though prisoners have an ability to pay taxes as a result of the government. This could get into some interesting areas such as, if it is possible for a prisoner to earn a taxable wage, should they thus earn the right to vote, to which the logic would dictate yes. But if such an opportunity doesn't exist or is not likely to exist, then the argument can't be made.
To make myself clear, imagine if there was a Federal law requiring all people in Maine to enter a building. They all do being because they abide by the law, and the building door is shut and locked. There are no means for making a living in this building as this is part of the intention of the building, but even if there were, they wouldn't be able to transfer any goods or money outside the building. The people are cared for or course, but have no way of getting out, and escaping is illegal. The people from other states then begin to make the argument that since the people of Maine cannot pay taxes to the Federal government, that Maine should not be entitled to any vote.
I realize you are playing the devil's advocate, but that's not a reason for me to make a counter.
Gives 'em a reason to pay attention to the going on's of the outside world, in my opinion.
Plus, whoever is president CAN have an effect on them even though they're in prison since they are fed, given a warm bed to sleep on, and taken care of by the state.
What would it look like if voters were trying to elect the wrong people?
If we are going to allow prisoners to vote, we would have to have an elected representative from each of the prisons due to the populations some have. The views of this said Prison-Representative would be so narrow due to the fact that his constituents are so out-of-contact with what is going on in the outside world, having the prisoners represented in Congress wouldn't be necessary since many of the prisoners would have been isolated from mainstream society.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
