Prisoners and voting... (3 Viewers)

[HumanDichotomy]

This post was inspired by the 'Euthanasia for Life Prisoners?' post. It got me thinking about the rights of those in jail, which reminded me of a discussion we had in Modern last year about whether people in jail should be allowed to vote. I got into an argument with my friend about voting as a basic right. I don't necessarily think it is. I think it's an *important* right, but not a fundamental right. It's essentially participation in society, an attempt to have a say, and if someone is in jail for murder or rape, they've obviously indicated that they can't adhere to the basic moral principles which are expected of each person within society. They are, in fact, detrimental to society.

So, should they get to vote? What should the circumstances be?

EDIT: (raised by loquasagacious) The corrolary to the OP's question is of course whether former prisoners should have a right (requirement in Australia) to vote?

This question was also raised during this particular Modern class. We had a Swiss exchange student at the time, and he told us that in Switzerland, if you have EVER been in prison, you can't vote.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I think that we should err on the side of being too liberal and give them a vote. They're not a large voting bloc and they have extremely poor political will and representation, so I don't think they could pose a political threat even if they wanted to.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I don't think they could pose a political threat even if they wanted to.

Hmm. Yeah. True.

 

[cassieagill]

the point of prison is to punish. their basic rights are taken away. they should not get to vote

 

[Iron]

They have broken the law in a serious enough way to warrant incarceration. They deserve to lose the right to choose our law-makers.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

They have broken the law in a serious enough way to warrant incarceration. They deserve to lose the right to choose our law-makers.

So do you think voting is a right of fundamental importance?

 

[Iron]

No. Democracy is hardly an absolute and is rivaled by numerous other systems of government. The business of politics and governing is only about power. We submit to this arbitrary power because we recognise that we'd be worse without it.

 

[ninetypercent]

they do not deserve the right to vote

 

[HumanDichotomy]

they do not deserve the right to vote

Why? Just out of curiosity...

 

[loquasagacious]

Law-breakers voting for law-makers seems problematic however I am far from decided.

The corrolary to the OP's question is of course whether former prisoners should have a right (requirement in Australia) to vote?

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Yeah, you're right. A Swiss exchange student was telling us that in Switzerland, you're not allowed to vote if you've EVER been in prison.

 

[TommySix]

They have broken the law in a serious enough way to warrant incarceration. They deserve to lose the right to choose our law-makers.

Well considering the fact that you can be jailed for driving whilst disqualified without having caused any ACTUAL harm, you have merely disobeyed a punitive measure for whatever infraction you committed in the first place, you argument that jail automatically equals severe criminality is thrown out of the window.

What if some hard working man who fell asleep at the wheel and caused an accident that didn't kill someone, but caused greivous bodily harm and he was given a jail sentence? Where is the criminality in that? Drunk drivers I can understand to a certain degree, but what you are getting at is criminality. That means mens reas and actus reas (sp?) yet people are very often jailed on strict liability laws that break the very fundamentals of criminal law which is establishing criminality otherwise known as culpability.

In light of this defect, how can you say that prisoners should be disallowed the right to vote? Do the actions of the law makers NOT affect them during and more importantly AFTER their terms of imprisonment?

 

[Iron]

Your driving examples are still examples where someone needlessly puts the lives of others at risk. If this results in loss of life, the book isnt exactly thrown at them, but theyre hardly let off. Theyre culpable for their negligence and if this result in the loss of their voting rights, then have a cry. I suspect that voting is the least of the prisoner's worries

 

[whatashotbyseve]

Labor gets enough votes as it is. No.

 

[Kolefax]

They should not be able to vote.
A criminal shows no respect for the law, those who enforce them, and those who create them to better society. Why should they get to choose?

 

[JonathanM]

People who are sent to jail on 'serious' summary offences or indictable offences hear dsummarily (prison sentences under 3 years) get to vote again once they are released. Not so for any other indictable offence (or for any crime that recieves greater than a 3 year sentence.

Seems fair, if you've commited a crime serious enough to warrant that long a sentence you forfeit your right to vote.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Yeah. So it's not a fundamental right then?

 

[atreus]

Well considering the fact that you can be jailed for driving whilst disqualified without having caused any ACTUAL harm, you have merely disobeyed a punitive measure for whatever infraction you committed in the first place, you argument that jail automatically equals severe criminality is thrown out of the window.

What if some hard working man who fell asleep at the wheel and caused an accident that didn't kill someone, but caused greivous bodily harm and he was given a jail sentence? Where is the criminality in that? Drunk drivers I can understand to a certain degree, but what you are getting at is criminality. That means mens reas and actus reas (sp?) yet people are very often jailed on strict liability laws that break the very fundamentals of criminal law which is establishing criminality otherwise known as culpability.

In light of this defect, how can you say that prisoners should be disallowed the right to vote? Do the actions of the law makers NOT affect them during and more importantly AFTER their terms of imprisonment?

Also, short term sentencing can be very inconsistent. Two people may have committed the same offence, but because of personal factors, geographical location, etc. one could receive a non-custodial sentence and the other imprisoned. A prison sentence is not really a good indicator of the severity of an offence - one of the main reasons why the High Court found that only prisoners serving sentences of 3 years or more could be disenfranchised.

 

[Cookie182]

Just to take Graney's words from the "Euthanasia for Life Prisoners" thread, as they absolutely sum up my position on the justice system:

The modern western prison system is designed as an institution, primarily for reforming and rehabilitating prisoners. Where individuals are guilty of crimes too abhorrent to ever be released, they are kept in a safe and humane environment.

Beyond the deprivation of liberty, which is the intention of prisons (and you may argue prisoners are afforded too much or too little liberty), it is policy to treat prisoners in a dignified manner, and that they are entitled to the same rights and protections as individuals in free society.

We've long abandoned torture as dehumanising and uncivilised. It's simply barbaric.

Allowing revenge or malice to dictate policy is unconscionable. Keeping people alive with the sole intention of seeing them suffer, is as morally disgusting as if we were to flay them alive imo.

Policy should be formulated with kindness and sympathy towards the unfortunate, sick individuals who commit terrible crimes. If allowing them to end their lives is the most humane option, it should be done.

I vehemently oppose any further restrictions on their rights other then that of their physical liberty which we have already imposed.

I actually think that prisoners, among any other class in society, need the right to vote more then ever.

As free members, our lives are far less dictated by a system of direct governmental influence then those of prisoners. Since the government has ultimate control over how prisons are ran, which basically extends to ultimate control over the prisoners lives, then they very much deserve a say in who the elected for this role should be.

Any other arguments to the contrary seem to stem from the tree of emotional and irrational thought.

 

[Cookie182]

I think its kinda basic logic.

1) Are they a human being?

2) Given they are human, are they an Australian citizen?

3) Is the human, Australian citizen over 18?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RIGHT TO VOTE