Votes for prisoners

I think if someone is serving a sentence they should forfeit their right to a vote. What about people who are homeless or through no fault of their own do not have a permanent address? Surely they are more deserving of an opportunity to have their say?

Why would making it possible for people without a fixed address to vote have any relevance to giving prisoners the vote?

PTSD is a terrible illness when it's genuine, as I'm sure it is with the majority of ex servicemen. But I see the term applied so often to people who have only suffered minor trauma, that it is at risk of being trivialitiesed.

It is possible that many people are in prison because "society" has let them down. They may have problems due to social or emotional or health (physical or mental)or disability issues. I have worked with young people who were born into deprivation and social exclusion. These people better, than some of us, know what it is like to be on the "wrong" end of the social continuum and are, through their life experiences, qualified to question the services on offer and work to change them. It seems to me, that to enable these people to vote gives them an opportunity to take control of their lives.
i could go on and on as I feel very strongly about this but I do not want to be a bore.

Not trivial at all, jeni. I am sure many people do claim to have been traumatised in order to gain sympathy or compensation, but the number of ex service men committing suicide, going to prison, or ending up homeless, or relying on drugs or alcohol to survive (after a fashion) is unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether or not people agree with certain military decisions - the poor bloody frontline troops are the ones left in the lurch.

I have never been homeless or destitute, but I have enough imagination to understand how some people can fall into committing crimes.

I have NO PROBLEM with ex servicemen. But! I see a lot of people who say they suffer from PTSD from minor trauma and claim major disability from it!
I used to sit on the war pensions committees and am very conversant with problems that ex servicemen face.
In fact, when sitting in tribunals if a claimant says their problems were due to service and they haven't claimed, I encourage them to contact the appropriate organisations!

The logistics of giving prisoners the vote are quite complex. They would have to be registered somewhere. In their home constituency? Or in the constituency where the prison is situated? In the former case, they would need to have postal votes organised. In the latter, it could be complicated by moving from one prison to another. In both cases, the onus would have to be on each individual prisoner to make sure his/her registration was up to date and apply for a postal vote. How would the parties know where to send the freepost leaflets to?
In my opinion, if any prisoner is motivated to go through these hoops, then he/she deserves to have the vote.

annodomini I agree completely.

johanna It is about prisoners – some or all – being allowed to vote while they are in prison.

Once again, the government is stirring up resentment against the EU for their own purposes. The new rules say that only a blanket ban is illegal. It wouldn't be beyond the gvmnt's lawyers to produce new rules, allowing people on short sentences to vote, or people guilty of non violent crimes, or whatever they chose. And as johanna mention, would be no big deal for short sentence prisoners. But to appease their own Eurosceptics, they feign indignation, and will refuse to comply. Nothing to do with the merit of the case, all to do with internal issues.

I am afraid I could not agree with prisoners having a vote, when they committed the crime against society they gave away that right. I think we are far too lenient on prisoners it should be hard labour. I remember as a boy watching the prisoners out fixing the roads let’s get back to that. They are now over fed and over educated.
Life is hard on the outside as a pensioner, heating and food are expensive the criminals get it for free and complain the food is not to their liking.
Bring back the birch!

Another point is would the vote count in their home area or where the prison is.
If a prisoner's home was in Birmingham and he was in prison in Derbyshire he may have no interest in Derbyshire.

They have no rights so they shouldn't even be allowed to breathe.

You would have a prisoner unable to breathe no matter what the offence Ian? Bit punitive?

HUNTERF I discussed that in my last post,

Ahogill - I think and hope that not many members will support your views, which I consider to be barbaric. Whom would you propose to wield the birch?
Would there be a national register of sadists?

Greatnan talks a lot of sense . I really disliked the sanctimonious tone of some of the comments. What does make me cross though is that ex prisoners like Archer and Black can swan along to the unelected Lords and vote on issues that affect me. But back to current prisoners - the Govt should behave lawfully and the debate should be about which categories of prisoners should be able to vote - I don't think anyone is arguing for ALL prisoners to have the vote. Perhaps some of you would like the American system where even ex- prisoners are barred from voting for life.

I am sorry this may not be a good reason but if it is going to cost us money in compensation if we don't give them the vote then give them the vote.

More relevant many prisoners come from poorest and most under privileged areas of the country and by giving them the vote they may take an interest in Politics and try to understand how their vote could bring about change for their communities.

I feel very uncomfortable about politicians deciding that the hard-won right of universal franchise is a privilege that they can bestow or withhold.

bluebell I am arguing that ALL prisoners should have the vote.

I find it worrying that Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who is responsible for sorting this out, has no legal training and is clearly positioning himself politically. He seems to be totally ignoring advice from the Attorney General, which I should have thought unwise given his ignorance of matters legal. I don't know much about Dominic Grieve but he is a QC and, presumably, has a more informed opinion than a layman.

There is some history of politicians ignoring their legal advisors - remember the little matter of Blair and the threat posed by Iraq?

That was slightly different Greatnan. Lord Blair of al Basrah just kept sending him back until he got his advice right.

No definitely how can be any other answer for people who do not abide by the law

Try to rehabilitate them by treating them with respect? Stop regarding anyone who goes wrong as less than human? Imprison less non-violent offenders? Use some compassion? Just a few suggestions.