Should prisoners be allowed to vote ?

after being convicted of a crime. They should regain they right after they serve their time or are pardoned. Being convicted of a crime serious enough to be incarcerated means you lose your freedoms.

Must admit Qhris makes some interesting points..

There is ofcourse some room for accomodation I think..

In 2004 The EHCR ruled that the blanket ban was discriminatory and breached the European Convention on Human Rights. However they said that each country can decide which offences should carry restrictions to voting rights.

The problem is that the government has been slow to react and is also worried about compensation claims .. So it is thinking of removing the ban totally..

Who pays for the prisoners? Its the tax-payers money isnt it? If it is then every other logic fails

full suffrage for unconvicted prisoners, convicted prisoners should not be allowed.

That bridge will be crossed very soon.

You are naive if you don't think there are a wave of lawyers just waiting to exploit the rest of the freedoms they 'should' be allowed, using the VOTE as a PRECEDENT case.

This is REALLY relevant, please don't try and dismiss me as going off topic. How can you justify one 'right', but not all of the others?

Then, a vote is not 'just a vote'.

A vote is then a 'holy cr*p, why didn't we think of that?'

Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. As of now the topic is voting and voting alone. Not freedom to move around, reproduce etc. And the truth is a vote is just that a vote. And not everyone who votes will have the same morales, values,etc. But we all do.

No.

My only fear is this; what about the sh*tload of litigation that follows this right to vote?

Say a woman, age 20, gets jailed for 40 years.

Released at 60. So guess what? She has missed the age that she can give birth, so her right to have a family has been taken away.

Should she be allowed to do this? I mean, a democracy is their to protect her rights, right? Isn't it inhumane that the new life she begins upon release, the 'free' citizens have taken away her right to raise a family?

There are so many other issues if you begin to give criminals 'rights'.

just handcuffed them and let them roamed around the city! Lol!

As I said, if the decision is final and executory, the right to suffrage should be also banned!

A few days ago, i read a thread by exexexpat.. the discussion turned to political correctness. IMHO, this issue applies as well.

Even if they are citizens of the country, they committed a crime (breach of law)that jeopardize the country or country's image. Now, how can you allow someone who has done something wrong to your country (or its people) to elect a member of the government who will make laws that shall be abided by EVERYONE?

If each and every right of a person is to be honoured, then what is the purpose of sending them to the prison? Freedom id the number one right of every individual. No one should be imprisoned then.

No, prisoners shouldn't vote.

As long as they are not put to death they are still very much a part of the country and who is to judge the righteousness of everyone allowed to vote?In that sense are all those "free" citizens voting all free of vices and sin?

I wouldn't trust a paedo with a child.

I wouldn't trust a thief with my wallet.

I wouldn't trust a murderer with a kitchen knife.

Why would I trust them to use their vote?

They shouldn't be shot.

But if they are put into prison, they have been deemed a danger to society.

Therefore, they are removed from that society until they learn how to integrate into properly.

The line is very clear; in jail, you are removed from society for your actions.

You change one thing, it opens the floodgates.

As part of a democracy, you have a right to migration.

Maybe we should give them their passports and allow them that human right? Maybe they could benefit another society, and we are inhumanely stopping them?

A punishment is just that.

May he who has never sinned cast the first stone. Qhris why not just take them around the back and shoot then eh?

Maybe they are serving their land by keeping their theiving, murderous, raping, paedophile inclined, un-law abiding ways behind bars, and keeping the society they tried to taint free of their opinions and behaviours...

They should be allowed to vote. As long as they are alive they are still very much citizens of the country and perhaps this is one way they can serve their land..by using their right to vote for the right candidate.

certain right are restricted (temporarily, unless the sentence is 'reclusion perpetua"). The right to suffrage, IMHO, should be included until such time that they are allowed to go mainstream society again!

No right is absolute! It's the same thing as that some convicted fellows are banned from running in public office because of the nature of their crimes!

It would probably never get to that fine a point, but an election swung by criminals?

The people out there working, driving, paying taxes, relying on health services etc could have their day-to-day lives dictated from those behind bars, who waived their 'right' to participate in society.

EDIT; until rehabilitated. Their voting rights should be restored upon release back into the society where taxes etc matter to them.

Also....forgive me if this is written somewhere.

Surely every constituency does not have a prison? I am not sure how it works if you get sent to a prison far from where you live, are you voting for the party in that area? I mean, they are not 'living' anywhere, with a fixed address, so....wouldn't that taint certain parliamentary areas?

Perhaps they have something to offer. Perhaps it's the way the government is running the country that is driving them to crime. Perhaps they have a take on how to improve the country so that they can leave crime behind them. Perhaps they experienced life in a different way than you do. Perhaps they should be listened to.

Heinous crime is a good point.

But....what about all the people that plea-bargained manslaughter, to get a lesser sentence, so are not 'murderers'?

There crime is, in theory, less heinous because it is deemeed 'without malice'....

A valid point. However, what about the argument that in a democracy, each and every citizen should have the right to vote and a say in who is elected.

they should not allowed, criminal will always favour criminal.

i saw it on TV during election day flor.

They should be allowed to vote except few hardcore criminals..

were allowed to vote? Maybe only those whose case are still on-going? I'm not sure but I think that's the situation there. Or maybe they have created a "barangay" inside the place and they are voting for their leader there! Maybe, I'm not sure, IMHO.

flor, in our country prisoners are allowed to vote, during the recent local elections there were convicts with police escorts who were allowed to vote

and yes prisoners should vote.

They took away the right to vote, and to the right to LIFE, of the people that they murdered.

It is only because we are a civiised society that the world does not have the death penalty.

If that was in place, then the people who lost their lives to the killer....would have the same voting rights as the killer; none.

They should be able to vote. But I wonder if they will get canvasers calling at their cells. Vote for me and I will set you free.

or released permanently. Why not, what can they contribute to a society where they violated the rule itself. Better focus on rehabilitating oneself and go back to mainstream society later!

Why not ?

be allowed but for those waiting for the decision on their case, they should!

When I say convicted, it means the decision was not under review or appeal!