Should inmates have the right to vote in elections?

[MartinPurvis]

Should inmates have the right to vote in elections whilst serving time inside jail?

What do you think?

[RitualBlack]

I am not sure quite sure about this one. They are a citizen of the country who will probably be integrated back into regular life so elections will have an impact on them but on the other hand they have lost their rights. Maybe a compromise would make the most sense. Low security prisons can hold polls for those who want to vote and the right could be withheld from those who are convicted of repeat/more severe crimes residing within the higher security prisons.

[imperistan]

I figure so long as you're sane you should be able to vote if you want to, criminal or not. Not exactly like prisoners voting is going to be a bad thing, even if they try to vote for some oddball guy that wants to abolish prisons or something.

[sukeban]

Whilst they're currently in prison, I would lean toward 'no,' as they're not really inhabiting the same plane of society as the rest of us. Though, @Tom's position does make sense to me, in that they'll be back (hopefully) sometime in the future, so they may as well have a say as to what that future looks like. Plus, our election turnouts (US) are so low anyway, usually below 50% of eligible voters, that really, we need every participant we can possibly get. More people voting in elections is nearly always going to be a positive thing.

 

What doesn't make sense to me are states that permanently disenfranchise inmates even after they are released from prison. That strikes me as very much anti-democratic, even if it is technically legit as per the constitution. One might also speak of how this might benefit one political party at the expense of the other, but I digress.

 

In short, @Tom swayed me and I actually answered 'yes." :)

[SilverDNA]

In my country the laws ( Germany ) are the following:

1. active suffrage is denied to prisoners. (The right to be elected)
2. passive suffrage is allowed through postal vote. / the right to vote)
3. If a inmate is released from prison, after the prison time and after probation the former inmate's rights to participate in active suffrage is fully restored.

Exception to No. 3 it is unlikely that a typical criminal is participating in active suffrage although political criminals of the former GDR have even the right to become president of the FRG as it will now soon happen, since our last president had to resign. so if i may say so it is not fully impossible but unlikely that someone that has had a sentence for a capital crime will come to a political office.

 

In my opinion it is just and fair.

 

 

Now since it came up in this topic ....

 

the US has signed the, but not ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it is in the stars when it will come fully to the US, but it is only a matter of time. The passive suffrage of disabled person is allowed in the US, but the US still denies it the right to disabled persons of active suffrage. ( funny the US had at least two presidents in office that i can recall from head that had disabilities ( and if a presidential candidate has a certain age the possibility of a disability is higher with a certain age than not. now Ironic ... so there is sense in only letting the young, immature and healthy be elected for the office of president ... )

 

 

Now you may look at the spoiler provided on Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities..

 

 

 

 

Article 29

Participation in political and public life

States Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others, and shall undertake to:

 

(a) Ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected, inter alia, by:

 

(i) Ensuring that voting procedures, facilities and materials are appropriate, accessible and easy to understand and use;

 

(ii) Protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation, and to stand for elections, to effectively hold office and perform all public functions at all levels of government, facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate;

 

(iii) Guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end, where necessary, at their request, allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice;

 

(b) Promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and encourage their participation in public affairs, including:

 

(i) Participation in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country, and in the activities and administration of political parties;

 

(ii) Forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels.

 

Source:

<h3 class="r"></h3>Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights / OHCHR

 

http://www2.ohchr.or...nvention.htm#29

 

 

Edited February 22, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Aurielius]

By the very fact that they are in prison exemplifies their lack of citizenship so... NO. In most US states it is an automatic disqualification for voting, when they get out and rejoin society then they should enjoy the rights of being a citizen again not until. Why should people like Jeffry Dalmer and Charles Mansion and their ilk be in the same category as the rest of the free population in terms of rights? If one category of prisoner is so entitled it will be a matter time before the other types are also.

[sukeban]

@Aurelius

 

I can definitely feel that position, as it was mine until several moments ago as well. And, I think that in many circumstances that makes a great deal of sense. However, think of all the people in American prisons convicted on dubious charges, likely because they were not wealthy enough to have access to adequate legal council. Take into consideration the racial composition of our prison population, something like 70% minority when minorities only comprise something like 35% of our population. Ditto for length of sentences, with minorities receiving far longer sentences than white prisoners with crimes of equivalent severity. Anyway, you can see where I'm going. At what point does disenfranchising inmates in prison become a proxy method of denying certain people the right to vote? Nobody would really like to see Manson voting, but most prisoners aren't Manson. Many are just young kids convicted on drug charges due to mandatory-sentencing laws. Not quite social monsters. I don't want to see Manson vote either, but I would allow him to vote if it meant that all the others could as well (though whether or not they actually cared enough to vote... well, that's another matter, I suppose). Or perhaps just design it so that only capital crimes are subject to disenfranchisement.

Edited February 22, 2012 by sukeban

[RatB0Y68]

I would lean heavily towards no. The convicts have been incarcerated for breaking the laws of society and thus should not be entitled to the benefits of said society, in this case getting a say in how it operates.

I see another issue with this, if prisoners were able to vote, many of them would simply vote for whomever would get them out of prison quicker. While people inevitably vote in accordance with their interests, when in prison the only immediate interest of some convicts would simply be getting out of prison quicker.

I also predict politicians may take advantage of this, adapting their policies to appeal to the prison population, to the detriment of the law abiding citizens, although I admit this is a bit more far-fetched.

[Balagor]

I will answer by asking some questions.

Should it be all inmates that should be taken the rights to vote. Also those who got a parking ticket, and cannot pay, thus going to jail for it?

Can it be abused? Like in Burma. Jail all your opponents, and they can do nothing.

Democrats could tend to all Repubilans get a ticket on election day, cash only, no credit cards, or you have to do time. Sorry you missed the election, lol.

Should an inmate on the death row be denied the possibility to vote for the senator who actually wants to abolish the death penalty?

A lot of thinking needs to be done here.

[RatB0Y68]

I will attempt to address your questions.

 

Firstly I would answer yes, in principle all inmates should be denied the right to vote. I am making the assumption however that the inmate has been tried by jury in court and found guilty of a criminal or civil offence. Regardless of the severity of the offence, they have still broken the laws of society, thus (in my view) disqualifying them from most, if not all benefits of that society.

This, to me is a social contract, quid pro quo, citizens obey the laws of a society and in return get to reap the benefits produced. Giving prisoners the right to vote would be an example of a violation of this social contract; when prisoners break the law of society yet can still reap the benefits. I believe this sets a dangerous precedent, it is an opportunity to get something for nothing.

With regards to your parking ticket example, I would argue this is more of a problem with the justice system rather than the principle of the social contract. In the UK, when the courts issue a fine, one of the factors deciding how much the defendant pays is how much they realistically can pay. It is no use charging £1000 in fines if the defendant simply cannot earn that much in time. Fines are tailored to be actually payable.

However, if the person is able, but not willing to pay the fine for the parking ticket, they have commited a criminal offence, and when found guilty and imprisoned, would lose their entitlements as normal.

 

Secondly, with regard to the question of abuse:

Yes, of course it can be abused, but in a proper democratic society, there are checks and balances to counter this.

No system ever created by humans will ever be free of abuse.

With regards to your Burma example, I would argue that in this situation the problem is with the government; with no checks and balances to mitigate the ulterior motives of the State, it will do as it pleases without regard for the lives and wellbeing of its citizens. So in this situation the government has violated the social contract.

 

Your third example, where the Democrats ensure rupublican supporters are unable to vote due to being occupied by paying fines. My answer is this:

 

If this was done to many republican supporters, someone would notice something was amiss, the fact that only republicans were fined, mass finings, and the convenient timing. Someone, many people in fact would probably raise questions. I get the feeling people would not take this lying down, there would be public inquiries, mass demonstrations etc.

The political ramifications for the governing party if they were found out would be dire. In a proper democratic society the revelation that the government tried to set its own citizens up for prison to stay in power could ruin the governing party's credibility, possibly forever.

 

In short, trying to set up the republican's supporters for prison with fines with the purpose of denying or preventing their vote would be unworkable, it is not subtle enough to go unoticed, the faliure risk is high and faliure would be political suicide.

 

Finally your death row example, my answer is still that they are not entitled to vote. As with any prisoner, and any offence, if given the vote they would vote for the candidate most likely to get them out of prison; thus by giving them the vote you allow prisoners an opportunity to escape the consequences of their actions. The fact that the inmates offences are so serious as to warrant death would only increase the travesty of justice. It makes a mockery of the justice system if people are able to break the laws of society, yet retain its benefits, then use those benefits to escape lawful punishment. A classic example of playing the system and playing those who work by its rule, in my opinion.

Edited February 22, 2012 by RatB0Y68