Prisoners Voting

[michael769]

I repeat my earlier point. If the court are telling MPs that they can't vote in favour of keeping the ban, surely they are infringing one of the basic principles placed in the act, the right to a fair vote? The Court are fixing the terms of the vote before the ballot has been cast!

It infringes the Supremacy of Parliament one of the key tenants of our constitution.

 

[bnm]

I wasn't aware that we had a constitution in the UK.

We have Statutes, Acts, Treaties, Conventions, Precedents etc, but no unified Constitution.

Do remember also that it was a Conservative Government who paved the way for laws in the EEC/EC/EU to have primacy in the UK with the European Communities Act 1972.

 

[maniacmartin]

[...] they are taking away British democracy and violating their own code, that we are all free and equal to vote as we please? [...]

The irony of this is astounding. ECHR taking away MPs' right to vote to take away prisoner's right to vote.

I am fully in favour of all prisoners being able to vote in elections (assuming they would be otherwise be eligble to vote if it weren't for their sentence).

I think that the bedrock to a democracy is that all citizens have a right to vote, even those who have broken the law. MPs should represent the citizens, and the law should reflect the moral views of the citizens. Those who don't agree with the current legislation are still citizens who should be represented proportionally.

Some issues are quite divisive, such as the government's policy on drugs. I think that someone jailed on such an issue should be granted the same representation in parliament, and so that their representative can possibly argue for the decriminalisation of their crimes etc. (Of course the MP has other constituent's views to weigh up too, which practically will outnumber prisoners). Thinking about which crimes are debatable and which are not, the only conlusion that I personally can end up at is that all crimes are up for debate, but of course that the evidence for defending murderers etc would be very slim indeed.

As for the ECHR, it definately infringes upon our sovereignity, but I think it is a force for good, and has kept the government in check . There are certainly much more meddling european instutions in my view.

 

[Oswyntail]

I wasn't aware that we had a constitution in the UK.

We have Statutes, Acts, Treaties, Conventions, Precedents etc, but no unified Constitution.

It is still a constitution...but that opens up a whole new thread.

Do remember also that it was a Conservative Government who paved the way for laws in the EEC/EC/EU to have primacy in the UK with the European Communities Act 1972.

How very relevant.

....

I think that the bedrock to a democracy is that all citizens have a right to vote, even those who have broken the law. MPs should represent the citizens, and the law should reflect the moral views of the citizens.

Of course, MPs should be representing ALL their constituents, including those ineligible to vote. It could be argued that most citizens are represented by MPs they didn't vote for.

Those who don't agree with the current legislation are still citizens who should be represented proportionally.

That is the most wonderful euphemism I have read in a long while. They are not imprisoned for exercising their right to disagree - they have broken the rules of society, aka the law.

...... (Of course the MP has other constituent's views to weigh up too, which practically will outnumber prisoners).

The same is arguably true of every issue, regardless of prisoners, which is how we can end up with MPs giving up trying and simply voting as their party whips tell them to

....Thinking about which crimes are debatable and which are not, the only conlusion that I personally can end up at is that all crimes are up for debate, but of course that the evidence for defending murderers etc would be very slim indeed.

All or nothing is at least an objective rule that everyone knows how to apply. The apparently attractive approach of applying the ban to only those sentences over "n" months in length is that sentences can vary even for the same crime.

....
As for the ECHR, it definately infringes upon our sovereignity, but I think it is a force for good, and has kept the government in check . There are certainly much more meddling european instutions in my view.

Yes, it is an external check, but most of the legislation is also covered in British law. perhaps the remit of the ECHR should be limited to checking that national law does not breach HR, rather than imposing new laws on current ones.

 

[maniacmartin]

[...] perhaps the remit of the ECHR should be limited to checking that national law does not breach HR, rather than imposing new laws on current ones.

That is two ways of saying the same thing to me

 

[SS4]

And, I suspect, part of the British system long before the ECHR was established

Indeed, that's not what the poster I quoted said though.

It is still a constitution...but that opens up a whole new thread.

How very relevant.

Of course, MPs should be representing ALL their constituents, including those ineligible to vote. It could be argued that most citizens are represented by MPs they didn't vote for.That is the most wonderful euphemism I have read in a long while. They are not imprisoned for exercising their right to disagree - they have broken the rules of society, aka the law.


The same is arguably true of every issue, regardless of prisoners, which is how we can end up with MPs giving up trying and simply voting as their party whips tell them to

All or nothing is at least an objective rule that everyone knows how to apply. The apparently attractive approach of applying the ban to only those sentences over "n" months in length is that sentences can vary even for the same crime.

Yes, it is an external check, but most of the legislation is also covered in British law. perhaps the remit of the ECHR should be limited to checking that national law does not breach HR, rather than imposing new laws on current ones.

I can get behind this, especially the last paragraph.

 

[yorksrob]

The irony of this is astounding. ECHR taking away MPs' right to vote to take away prisoner's right to vote.

A long established law that has been tested both at the ballot box and in parliament being struck down by people over whom we have no control - and all in the name of democracy - now that is irony.

I am fully in favour of all prisoners being able to vote in elections (assuming they would be otherwise be eligble to vote if it weren't for their sentence).

I think that the bedrock to a democracy is that all citizens have a right to vote, even those who have broken the law. MPs should represent the citizens, and the law should reflect the moral views of the citizens. Those who don't agree with the current legislation are still citizens who should be represented proportionally.

Some issues are quite divisive, such as the government's policy on drugs. I think that someone jailed on such an issue should be granted the same representation in parliament, and so that their representative can possibly argue for the decriminalisation of their crimes etc. (Of course the MP has other constituent's views to weigh up too, which practically will outnumber prisoners). Thinking about which crimes are debatable and which are not, the only conlusion that I personally can end up at is that all crimes are up for debate, but of course that the evidence for defending murderers etc would be very slim indeed.

This is all a very messy argument. If someone can't be trusted to live by society's laws to the extent that they have to be separated from society, why on earth should they have the right to influence the laws that everyone else has to live by ?

As for the ECHR, it definately infringes upon our sovereignity, but I think it is a force for good, and has kept the government in check . There are certainly much more meddling european instutions in my view.

Who keeps the judges in check ?

 

[Oswyntail]

That is two ways of saying the same thing to me

Not so. In the first instance, the national parliament makes the laws, and the ECHR advises if those laws breach human rights, and works with the national government to find the most suitable way for that country of avoiding breach. In the second, the ECHR produces laws the national government has to enforce, whether or not it is appropriate within the culture and history of that country.

 

[maniacmartin]

This is all a very messy argument. If someone can't be trusted to live by society's laws to the extent that they have to be separated from society, why on earth should they have the right to influence the laws that everyone else has to live by ?

Because we may have laws biased against a certain subsection of the population otherwise, and that will persist if they're not allowed to vote and thus influence those very laws. Its more of a point of principle to me.

 

[Mr Spock]

Because we may have laws biased against a certain subsection of the population otherwise, and that will persist if they're not allowed to vote and thus influence those very laws. Its more of a point of principle to me.

So a subsection of society (criminals) should be allowed to vote so that they might be able to influence laws so that their crimes are no longer crimes. Seems reasonable (not) to me.

 

[Oswyntail]

Because we may have laws biased against a certain subsection of the population otherwise, and that will persist if they're not allowed to vote and thus influence those very laws. Its more of a point of principle to me.

That only makes sense when laws are based on social grouping, which is not the case. I can see your argument if there was a law penalising, say, short-sightedness, but democracy such as we have is supposed to be sensible enough not to allow such laws to be passed. As it is, the criminal laws control certain acts - the "subsection of the population" does not have characteristics other than that they have carried out the forbidden acts. They have the usual means available within a democracy of trying to persuade the population that decriminalisation of those acts is a good thing; this usually involves campaigning and discussion. I suspect they would find it hard to persuade many that, say, GBH is a good thing that should not be a crime.

 

[Smudger105e]

One thing I have wondered about, where would the Prisoner be eligible to vote? Would it be where he lived at the time of sentencing, where his family lives (say they moved during the sentence) or would it be where the prison is located, which could skew the voting for the population in the constituency containing the prison?

 

[michael769]

One thing I have wondered about, where would the Prisoner be eligible to vote? Would it be where he lived at the time of sentencing, where his family lives (say they moved during the sentence) or would it be where the prison is located, which could skew the voting for the population in the constituency containing the prison?

Prisoners on remand are currently allowed to vote. They can choose to register either in the prison's constituency or theit normal home obstituncy.

 

[yorksrob]

Because we may have laws biased against a certain subsection of the population otherwise, and that will persist if they're not allowed to vote and thus influence those very laws. Its more of a point of principle to me.

Point of principle to me as well TBH.

To be fair, the Liberal Democrats have had this in their manifesto in the recent past. If we'd voted for it, it would still have offended my sense of justice, but I could have lived with it (more fool us as a country). But this law has no support within the population.

 

[maniacmartin]

or would it be where the prison is located, which could skew the voting for the population in the constituency containing the prison?

It's not prison populations that skew the constituencies though. The very notion of dividing the country into geographical areas where only the votes for the winner count and all others are discarded is the reason why the two-party system is thriving and smaller parties don't get a foot in the door. Your issue is an issue with the wider electoral system

 

[bnm]

But this law has no support within the population.

No support? A 2010 poll found that 24% of a sample of 2001 people were in favour. That's a small percentage, but certainly not no support.

I'm in favour.

 

[yorksrob]

No support? A 2010 poll found that 24% of a sample of 2001 people were in favour. That's a small percentage, but certainly not no support.

I'm in favour.

Point taken.

A small minority support it.

 

[Smudger105e]

Your issue is an issue with the wider electoral system

I am not arguing for PR in elections. I don't know why you drew that conclusion.

 

[maniacmartin]

I am not arguing for PR in elections. I don't know why you drew that conclusion.

I know you weren't arguing for PR but I believe PR or similar is still the only solution to that problem

 

[Oswyntail]

I know you weren't arguing for PR but I believe PR or similar is still the only solution to that problem

PR is a solution for nothing - it only creates more opportunity for argument. The current system is fine, so long as our representatives actually represent their constituency and not simply the party activists within it.