Some prisoners to get the vote

[Sirius]

I was not awere that this was passed 5 years ago and that the previus Goverment sat on it.

The UK has a "legal obligation" to let some prisoners vote under a 2005 European ruling, a minister has said.

Constitutional Reform Minister Mark Harper said the coalition accepted a need to change the law but had not yet decided which inmates it would affect.

Five years ago the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled the UK's long-standing voting ban was unlawful.

Ministers have been advised that continuing to resist the ruling would lead to costly compensation payouts.

Mr Harper told the Commons: "I think every member in the House is exasperated about this but we have no choice about complying with the law.

"The fact that the previous government failed to do what it knew was necessary for five years has left our country in a much worse position, both in terms of having to pay damages potentially, and case law has moved on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

I wonder what other European countries allow prisoners to vote ?

So there may have been a chance to fight this 5 years ago but now there is no chance.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

your still a member of society,

No you're not.

Society has deemed you too dangerous, or that you have wronged another member of society so much, that you should be removed from it.

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Voting is hardly a fun thing to do though. I don't think it's perceived as a joy or a privilege. It is a fundamental right. Hence why I feel it's dodgy to take it away from people.

I can't see the connection with punishment.

I don't see how it is a "fundemantal" right.

If you want a say in how society is run, then you should at least contribute positively to it, and live within its laws.

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I really don't see how voting is a privilege. Who decides who is allowed such a privilege? It's dodgy to consider it anything other than a right we are all entitled too irrespective of the category of person.

Well the government decide. The elected representatives of society

They decided when to give women the vote.

They decided to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18

And they have also decided not to reduce it further to 16.

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

And replace peoples rights in relation to:

• the right to life
• freedom from torture and degrading treatment
• freedom from slavery and forced labour
• the right to liberty
• the right to a fair trial
• the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
• the right to respect for private and family life
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
• freedom of expression
• freedom of assembly and association
• the right to marry and to start a family
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
• the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
• the right to an education
• the right to participate in free elections
• the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

(to name but a few) with what exactly?

I'll just pick one of those "rights"

the right to liberty

I'm assuming that right, is conditional on the condition that you haven't been found guilty of a crime and had your liberty removed by being sent to prison?

Therefore im my opinion

the right to participate in free elections

Should also come under the same caveat.

[chris9991]

I think the right to liberty is meant to mean that the government or another body can't just lock you up for looking at them funny, not all criminals aren't allowed to go to gaol but then again I could be wrong

[Osem]

Perhaps what's really required is that we are given the fundamental right to vote on whether the UK should withdraw from the ECHR. How about that?

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../278/27811.htm

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Osem

Perhaps what's really required is that we are given the fundamental right to vote on whether the UK should withdraw from the ECHR. How about that?

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../278/27811.htm

To quote a small section from that link

"Summary

The Joint Committee on Human Rights calls for the repeal of the Human Rights Act and recommends to the Government that the UK withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act was passed with some degree of cross-party support. Such support can no longer credibly be regarded as cross-party, and there is in no sense an effective consensus.

Thanks to the Human Rights Act, UK courts have adjudicated with growing frequency on the basis of the ECHR to the point where they are beginning to actively prevent our democratically elected government from responding effectively to serious challenges that threaten our county.

However, it is not enough to simply repeal the Human Rights Act and un-incorporate the ECHR from UK law. Rather, the UK must curtail the ability of the unelected and unaccountable Courts to adjudicate on the basis of the ECHR, which will necessarily mean withdrawing from the ECHR, not merely un-incorporating the ECHR from UK law.

We have assessed three recent cases of public policy failure:

* failure to deport nine Afghan hijackers
* granting Anthony Rice freedom to commit murder
* failure to failure to deport foreign criminals

[Gary L]

[QUOTE=Sirius;35117197]

Ministers have been advised that continuing to resist the ruling would lead to costly compensation payouts.

And I bet there's going to be a few that will when they find out they can.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Sirius

To quote a small section from that link

Again, what do you suggest the rights are replaced with?

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'll just pick one of those "rights"




I'm assuming that right, is conditional on the condition that you haven't been found guilty of a crime and had your liberty removed by being sent to prison?

Therefore im my opinion



Should also come under the same caveat.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. In this case, however, a European court disagrees and that is the issue at hand.

[MartJ]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I wonder what other European countries allow prisoners to vote ?

Examples of countries that allow prisoners to vote:-

Australia (where voting is compulsory for all Australians)
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany (except if convivted for electoral fraud or Treason)
Israel
Japan
Kenya
Netherlands
New Zealand (except if convicted of electoral fraud or corruption)
Norway
Peru
Poland
Romania
Serbia
Sweden

Example of a country which denies prisoners the right to vote:-

China.

So until this ruling came along we had something in common with China and its appalling Human Rights Records.

I don't have a problem with allowing prisoners the right to vote, how many will actually do so is open to question.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

You are of course entitled to your opinion. In this case, however, a European court disagrees and that is the issue at hand.

The great thing about democracy is that the will of the people will hopefully win out.

And enough of the UK population disagree with the ECHR, then that will, will be impressed upon our elected representatives and hopefully that should drive them to do something about it.

If enough people in the UK disgaree, then that will be an issue.

I shall be writing to my MP.

I have yet, apart from a few on here, to know anyone that agrees with this.

Even those that I know that agree we should abide by the ECHR ruling, also disagree with it in principle.

[Hugh]

I think that most people base their disagreement on the bolleaux printed in the tabloids, which is usually based on misinformation and misinterpretation.

Yes, there are a few stupid decisions made, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, please....

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I think that most people base their disagreement on the bolleaux printed in the tabloids, which is usually based on misinformation and misinterpretation.

Yes, there are a few stupid decisions made, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, please....

A Few? What decisions have been made that didn't overturn a situation that had existed for a very long time(decades/centuries) and we are at liberty to implement ourselves, if we so desired in a democratic manner.

[Hugh]

Thank you for your rhetorical question, which, coincidentially, was full of rhetoric....

Do you mean the ones where we were told it was, in fact, illegal to hold people under house arrest without telling them why we were doing it?

Or the one where your DNA was kept, even if you hadn't committed a crime?

As the current Attorney General Dominic Grieve stated last November, when he was Shadow Justice Secretary, about withdrawing from the EHCR

"Such a withdrawal would send a very damaging signal about how the UK viewed the place and promotion of human rights and liberties and would be an encouragement to every tin pot dictator such as Robert Mugabe, who violates them."

[RizzyKing]

Personally i believe there are things that you agree to forgo when you commit a crime against society or a member of society and one of them is a say in who runs the country. Whilst i would prefer a much harsher prison system then we have where punishment plays a part i do not believe in a cruel or violent prison system. Here is where much of my anger on this issue came from i had the misfortune to walk into the lounge as the wife was watching this on bbc news 24 or whatever it is called.

They had a spokesperson who had commited manslaughter many years ago who said "i celebrated with champagne and a spliff" before going on to compare this issue with that of the suffrogettes and then stating that the most vulnerable group in this country is not in fact the elderly it is prisoners.

Sorry but if i could have done i would have crawled into the tv and beaten the hell out of him and if that is an example of the sterling work of the rehabilitation brigade then clearly it is time for a rethink on a whole range of penal issues and not just should the poor little sweethearts be able to vote.

[Ignitionnet]

I find it rather patronising that talking heads think the UK can't provide satisfactory protection of human rights without the ECHR.

Whatever did we do before we had Brussels making the majority of our laws and over-ruling our elected representatives with decisions made by people who weren't elected full stop?

Fantastic how people are supporting a group institutionally opposed to democracy telling the UK how to run its' own democracy.

Personally I'd gladly pay towards the fines on condition I get to vote on telling the EU to shove its' rules where the sun doesn't shine in the form of a referendum on our EU membership at the next election.

Of course that would be democratic and we know how unpopular real democracy is in Europe, and indeed the UK when it comes to referendums that may result in an 'inconvenient' conclusion.

[Hugh]

I think your definition of "democracy" may be getting confused with that of "overblown rhetoric inflamed by 24 hours news and tabloid headlines"....

For instance, if there had been a referendum on jailing all Muslims after 7/7, that may have passed (due to the understandably strong emotions aroused) - would that have been democracy or mob-rule?

Any functioning democracy needs to have innate safeguards built in to prevent the majority from usurping and abusing the democratic process to browbeat and coerce the minority in submission to their will - the UK HRA and the EHRC provide some of those, imho (but like all "rights", there are those who abuse them - that doesn't mean the rights are wrong, just that they are sometimes abused).