Should inmates have the right to vote in elections?

[Nintii]

Though my heart would say "yes" give them the vote, my sense tells me that lawbreakers who have reached the incarceration stage

and have been removed from society should indeed have no say what goes on in society, the very place they chose to violate in the first place.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Nintii

[HeyYou]

no. While you are in prison, you have NO rights. (aside from the right to warm place to sleep at night, three square meals a day, free health care, and cable TV...........)

[RatB0Y68]

Yeah, we have a similar situation here. Not certain if this is still true but prisoners here in the UK have a lot of rights. Free healthcare, education, creature comforts like TV and games consoles etc. Not sure what's true or what's rumour though. I've heard stories of homeless people deliberately committing crimes simply to get off the street into an nice, safe, warm prison. Edited February 22, 2012 by RatB0Y68

[Balagor]

Yeah, not certain if this is still true but prisoners here in the UK have a lot of rights. Free healthcare, education, creature comforts like TV and games consoles etc. Not sure what's true or what's rumour though. I've heard stories of homeless people deliberately committing crimes simply to get of the street into an nice, safe, warm prison.

 

I think you heard the truth. Here in DK, it is well known that drug addicts deliberately let them selves get cought and jailed. They get roof, free meals, free dope and doctors, and get fit. I have no quarrel with that. I have no quarrel with giving them basic rights like ,right to vote either.

However I do have quarrels that they have a union, can strike if they don´t like the food, they get X-boxes and tv and the newst games. Some here on Nexus can not even afford that. But still, we all have our basic rights, or we do not have a democracy anymore. Who should be next then? Unemployed? Old People? Smokers? Obese people?

[RatB0Y68]

Yeah, not certain if this is still true but prisoners here in the UK have a lot of rights. Free healthcare, education, creature comforts like TV and games consoles etc. Not sure what's true or what's rumour though. I've heard stories of homeless people deliberately committing crimes simply to get of the street into an nice, safe, warm prison.

 

I think you heard the truth. Here in DK, it is well known that drug addicts deliberately let them selves get cought and jailed. They get roof, free meals, free dope and ddoctors, and get fit. I have no quarrel with that. I have no quarrel with giving them basic rights like ,right to vote either.

However I do have quarrels that they have a union, can strike if they don´t like the food, they get X-boxes and tv and the newst games. Some here on Nexus can not even afford that. But still, we all have our basic rights, or we do not have a democracy anymore. Who should be next then? Unemployed? Old People? Smokers? Obese people?

 

The unemployed, the old, the smokers and the obese are not breaking the laws of society, so are still entitled to its benefits. Criminals who break the terms of the social contract should not retain the protection of said contract. Why? Because of the problem it creates, it sets the risky precedent that people can break the law without repercussion, that if anything it is in many cases more expedient to be a criminal than a law abiding citizen.

It essentially infers you can retain all your rights, have a say in how society works, have creature comforts many on the outside cannot afford, all free at the point of delivery, paid by others, and without you having to work, conribute or obey the law. This is my issue with giving voting rights to prisoners, this on top of the other things I mentioned previously.

 

When a law breaker can commit crimes and enjoy the same if not better quality of life than a law follower, it is a huge disincentive to act lawfully, as the honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizen is being short-changed.

[Nintii]

Yeah, not certain if this is still true but prisoners here in the UK have a lot of rights. Free healthcare, education, creature comforts like TV and games consoles etc. Not sure what's true or what's rumour though. I've heard stories of homeless people deliberately committing crimes simply to get of the street into an nice, safe, warm prison.

 

Hah, that wouldn't surprise me if people did commit crime to have a home ... I reckon all those people without healthcare sure know where to go now lol ... I wonder if they have internet access ... maybe they could answer this question directly !

 

Four reasons my government WILL allow prisoners to vote.

 

 

First, despite the genuine concern about the high levels of crime in our society, a large majority of judges of the Constitutional Court – nine out of the eleven – displayed a remarkable concern for the rights of convicted prisoners serving time in a correctional facility. Although the judgment by Chief Justice Chaskalson confirmed that crime is a problem, it explicitly warned against a situation where the high levels of crime are used to justify extensive and inappropriate invasions of the rights of individuals – including the rights of prisoners. Prisoners are probably the most unpopular category of person in our country, and it would be difficult for a Court – even the Constitutional Court – not be influenced by this fact. Yet, the Court rejected the notion that the government could deprive them of their rights for reasons of political expediency. This means that a large majority of the judges of the Constitutional Court will require the government to provide clear, well thought through and legitimate reasons, before entertaining any limit on the rights of prisoners. Mere references to the problems of crime will not suffice. This means that legislation or regulations purporting to address the problem of crime, but merely designed to

send a signal to the public that the government is serious about fighting crime will not pass muster. The vote is not there to fight crime with, that is the task of the criminal justice system.

 

Second, even where the question before the Court is not in the first instance a question of a justifiable limitation, but rather whether what the exact scope and content of the right might be, the Nicro judgment seems to suggest that a majority of the justices on the Constitutional Court will not interpret these provisions overtly narrowly. For example, if a Court is called upon to determine whether the Department of Correctional Services has actually provided prisoners with adequate accommodation and nutrition, it will not be possible for the State to argue that many of our citizens outside prison live in inadequate accommodation and have no adequate access to food. As Chief Justice Chaskalson has made clear, the state has a special duty towards prisoners exactly because they are incarcerated.

 

Third, the government lost this case in part, because it was tardy in the way it engaged with the Court. As my previous report made clear, the Department of Correctional Services has a particularly bad track record when it comes to the way it engages with Constitutional litigation. If we assume that the majority of judges will cast a critical eye on the justifications offered by the government for the infringement of the rights of prisoners – also those rights guaranteed in section 35(2) – and if we assume that the Department will continue to respond in a less than efficient manner, the prospect of success in litigation against the Department seems high.

 

Fourth, as both the majority43 and Justice Madala44 point out, many countries, also open and democratic countries, have limited the rights of prisoner’s to vote, some of them quite severely. Yet, a large majority of Justices in this case found that the limit placed on the right to vote of prisoners convicted without the option of a fine, was not justifiable. This case was therefore not a clear-cut one in which most democratic societies would have taken the same route as the Court. This provides further evidence that the majority of justices will be sympathetic to well considered attack on legislation, regulations, actions or inactions that has the result of demeaning prisoners and affecting their rights explicitly guaranteed in section 35(2).

 

Lastly, the case reminds us that there is a growing body of international case law dealing with the right of prisoners to vote. Apart from the three cases dealt with in our country and mentioned above, Court in both Canada and Europe have now considered this matter. In the NICRO case, the Constitutional Court referred extensively and approvingly to the Canadian Supreme Court decision of Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer).45 Recently, the European Court of Human Right struck down a United Kingdom law that bars a convicted prisoner serving a sentence from voting in elections in the UK.46 This suggests that there is a growing body of opinion emerging from international tribunals that prisoner’s should not be deprived of their basic democratic rights merely because they are incarcerated.

 

 

 

The last section in the spoiler should be interesting reading to those in Europe and Canada.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Nintii

[hoofhearted4]

no they shouldnt. easy enough.

[Ghogiel]

no. While you are in prison, you have NO rights. (aside from the right to warm place to sleep at night, three square meals a day, free health care, and cable TV...........)

How about some human rights?

Is this how the general populace condones that raping in prison thing?<br><br><br><br><br>

[Lisnpuppy]

no. While you are in prison, you have NO rights. (aside from the right to warm place to sleep at night, three square meals a day, free health care, and cable TV...........)

How about some human rights?

Is this how the general populace condones that raping in prison thing?

 

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, Ghogiel. However no one has said anything about denying basic human rights and you referring to them thinking prison rape is ok is a bit on the flamy-baity side. SO lets not go there, hmm? Thank you. ~Lisnpuppy

[WizardOfAtlantis]

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.

That seems to sum up what happened in Florida pretty well some 12 years ago or so. What were the exact repercussions of Florida's vote rigging, denial of voting to blacks/minorities, and this whole right to vote on probation (iirc, there were "errors" here, too)?

 

As I tally it up, we got one Fox News-declared "President" who got booed and egged as he made his way "victoriously" to the White House (First Time In History), we got the Democrats calling "Shenanigans!" on the whole thing and half the country telling them "Your sore losers, derr"....and then we got a situation of constant war for the last 12 years thanks to that Saudi bed-buddy Bush.

 

So, correcting something if it's amiss is only a pipe dream. Been there, done that. Hell's Bells, there's even controversy on the present guy having links to the Bushes.

 

I think it might be better if the lines were drawn differently, but black-and-white is probably more effective (as in, "you're in prison, no vote to you"). I certainly don't think violent offenders should be able to vote....but should the others? Sex offenders?....mmhh, I'd say no. Mental "deviants" (the Mansons/Dahmers), of course not. Fraud/embezzlement.....their crimes affect way too many people, I'd say no again. What does that leave? Drug offenders?

 

Here's an interesting pic:

I can't link the exact pic, so you have to go here on Wikipedia and look on the very first graph on the top right.

Now, after the mouth-full that is Reaganomics, can anyone say The War on Drugs? Now, I'm not saying there's a 1 to 1 relationship, but...