Apparently, prisoners should get their vote in the GE...
Discussion
...or some hand wringing tw@t suggest the upcoming general election would be unlawful.
Get a grip, FFS.
Why on earth should we need to go to the expense of enabling prisoners to vote?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8503370.stm
Get a grip, FFS.
Why on earth should we need to go to the expense of enabling prisoners to vote?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8503370.stm
jimmyjimjim said:
So that a government can't influence the vote by imprisoning a large number of people who wouldn't necessarily vote for them. Seems a pretty decent safeguard to me, unpalatable as it may seem initially.
That would require the judiciary to be complicit with the government to jail those with non-government voting tendencies, no?I think the issue is diversionary, designed to give you something else to think about.
The right to be tried by ones peers(jury trial) is as much a part of democracy as the right to vote. How is that going lately?
Back to original post.
I do hope this is not a way to delay the election.
The right to be tried by ones peers(jury trial) is as much a part of democracy as the right to vote. How is that going lately?
Back to original post.
I do hope this is not a way to delay the election.
As said in the Rose Tinted Glasses thread, this country is severly screwed up in so many ways, and this is just another example!
Prisoners should not have the right to vote. End of.
Saying that, I'm one of those old fashioned types that naively thought a "Life Sentence" would mean life, or a "10 year sentence" would mean 10 years. Not 5 years. Why isn't it simply called a 5 year sentence?
Crazy.
Prisoners should not have the right to vote. End of.
Saying that, I'm one of those old fashioned types that naively thought a "Life Sentence" would mean life, or a "10 year sentence" would mean 10 years. Not 5 years. Why isn't it simply called a 5 year sentence?
Crazy.
TEKNOPUG said:
ROFL!!!
In all seriousness, you'd want an MP whose only constituents are prisoners?? That sounds like a f
king cushy number! Do a weekly surgey at the town-hall, hmmm.....no one turned up again today....I must be doing a great job!
Well I was just think of a compromise if we are forced into it.. In all seriousness, you'd want an MP whose only constituents are prisoners?? That sounds like a f
king cushy number! Do a weekly surgey at the town-hall, hmmm.....no one turned up again today....I must be doing a great job!
Telegraph said:
Prisoners to get the vote for the first time
Prisoners will be given the vote in general elections for the first time in 140 years after David Cameron conceded there was nothing he could do to halt a European court ruling demanding the change, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
For months, the Government’s lawyers have tried to find a way to avoid allowing 70,000 British inmates the right to take part in ballots.
But on Wednesday a representative for the Coalition will tell the Court of Appeal that the law will be changed following legal advice that the taxpayer could have to pay tens of millions of pounds in compensation.
The decision, which brings to an end six years of government attempts to avoid the issue, opens the possibility that even those facing life sentences for very serious crimes could in future shape Britain’s elections.
Ministers are now examining ways that limits could be placed on which inmates can vote. They will push for strict conditions, including a ban on “lifers” and murderers from voting.
In an attempt to limit the political fallout, there is likely to be a push to implement a threshold that would see those serving sentences longer than four years being excluded from voting.
It is understood that judges may be given responsibility for eventually deciding which criminals are allowed to vote when they are sentenced.
Senior government sources said Mr Cameron was “exasperated” and “furious” at having to agree to votes for prisoners, but the threat of costly litigation had forced his hand.
He was told that the Government faced a series of compensation claims from prisoners and potential legal action from the European Union if it did not agree to a change.
“This is the last thing we wanted to do, but we have looked at this from every conceivable angle and had lawyers poring over the issue,” a senior government source said.
“But there is no way out and if we continued to delay then it could start costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions in litigation.”
The Prime Minister is likely to face criticism from some in his own party for allowing Europe to dictate the law on such a sensitive issue. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has previously said it would be “ludicrous” to give inmates the right to vote.
Critics of the move have long argued that those who are guilty of preying on society should lose one of the most basic rights of a citizen.
But the decision will please the Liberal Democrats, who have campaigned for the law to be changed.
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is understood to have taken a personal interest in examining how the system could be altered.
Laws prohibiting the right of prisoners to vote were formalised in the 14th century, when the concept of “civic death” was established.
After the 1867 Reform Act gave working men the right to vote, the Forfeiture Act established the practice that those who were guilty of felonies could not vote.
In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket ban imposed by Britain on its prisoners’ right to vote was discriminatory following a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for killing his landlady with an axe.
The Strasbourg-based court said each country could decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights. Most other European nations allow some prisoners to take part in elections. But despite two separate public consultations, Jack Straw, Labour’s justice secretary, failed to implement any changes.
Legal experts have suggested that the bill for compensation could rise to more than £50 million if prisoners are not given the vote. In May Lord Pannick, a crossbencher, said there were 70,000 prisoners who could sue, with each in line for damages “in the region of £750”.
Earlier this year the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe warned the Government that its failure to act could lead to a string of compensation claims.
It raised the prospect that Britain could be the first country to fall foul of new powers which came into effect earlier this month. Potential sanctions include suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe — a separate body from the EU.
Last year, Peter Chester, who raped and murdered his niece, launched a legal challenge claiming his human rights were being breached by the refusal to allow him to vote.
The case was thrown out but Chester’s appeal will be heard tomorrow and that is when the Government will make its statement. Its lawyers will acknowledge that Britain is in breach of the European court’s judgment and a legal amendment is needed.
Further details about the limits ministers want to see in place are likely to follow before Christmas. One proposal would see inmates being given a vote based on their last postal address to prevent an entire prison voting in one constituency.
The Prison Governors Association has warned that the ban hampers inmates’ rehabilitation.
Other groups that cannot vote include peers, the Royal family, the criminally insane and people convicted of election-related corruption.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8103580/Prisoners-to-get-the-vote-for-the-first-time.htmlPrisoners will be given the vote in general elections for the first time in 140 years after David Cameron conceded there was nothing he could do to halt a European court ruling demanding the change, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
For months, the Government’s lawyers have tried to find a way to avoid allowing 70,000 British inmates the right to take part in ballots.
But on Wednesday a representative for the Coalition will tell the Court of Appeal that the law will be changed following legal advice that the taxpayer could have to pay tens of millions of pounds in compensation.
The decision, which brings to an end six years of government attempts to avoid the issue, opens the possibility that even those facing life sentences for very serious crimes could in future shape Britain’s elections.
Ministers are now examining ways that limits could be placed on which inmates can vote. They will push for strict conditions, including a ban on “lifers” and murderers from voting.
In an attempt to limit the political fallout, there is likely to be a push to implement a threshold that would see those serving sentences longer than four years being excluded from voting.
It is understood that judges may be given responsibility for eventually deciding which criminals are allowed to vote when they are sentenced.
Senior government sources said Mr Cameron was “exasperated” and “furious” at having to agree to votes for prisoners, but the threat of costly litigation had forced his hand.
He was told that the Government faced a series of compensation claims from prisoners and potential legal action from the European Union if it did not agree to a change.
“This is the last thing we wanted to do, but we have looked at this from every conceivable angle and had lawyers poring over the issue,” a senior government source said.
“But there is no way out and if we continued to delay then it could start costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions in litigation.”
The Prime Minister is likely to face criticism from some in his own party for allowing Europe to dictate the law on such a sensitive issue. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has previously said it would be “ludicrous” to give inmates the right to vote.
Critics of the move have long argued that those who are guilty of preying on society should lose one of the most basic rights of a citizen.
But the decision will please the Liberal Democrats, who have campaigned for the law to be changed.
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, is understood to have taken a personal interest in examining how the system could be altered.
Laws prohibiting the right of prisoners to vote were formalised in the 14th century, when the concept of “civic death” was established.
After the 1867 Reform Act gave working men the right to vote, the Forfeiture Act established the practice that those who were guilty of felonies could not vote.
In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket ban imposed by Britain on its prisoners’ right to vote was discriminatory following a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for killing his landlady with an axe.
The Strasbourg-based court said each country could decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights. Most other European nations allow some prisoners to take part in elections. But despite two separate public consultations, Jack Straw, Labour’s justice secretary, failed to implement any changes.
Legal experts have suggested that the bill for compensation could rise to more than £50 million if prisoners are not given the vote. In May Lord Pannick, a crossbencher, said there were 70,000 prisoners who could sue, with each in line for damages “in the region of £750”.
Earlier this year the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe warned the Government that its failure to act could lead to a string of compensation claims.
It raised the prospect that Britain could be the first country to fall foul of new powers which came into effect earlier this month. Potential sanctions include suspension or expulsion from the Council of Europe — a separate body from the EU.
Last year, Peter Chester, who raped and murdered his niece, launched a legal challenge claiming his human rights were being breached by the refusal to allow him to vote.
The case was thrown out but Chester’s appeal will be heard tomorrow and that is when the Government will make its statement. Its lawyers will acknowledge that Britain is in breach of the European court’s judgment and a legal amendment is needed.
Further details about the limits ministers want to see in place are likely to follow before Christmas. One proposal would see inmates being given a vote based on their last postal address to prevent an entire prison voting in one constituency.
The Prison Governors Association has warned that the ban hampers inmates’ rehabilitation.
Other groups that cannot vote include peers, the Royal family, the criminally insane and people convicted of election-related corruption.
This is entertainment and career progression for elements of the legal profession and an assertion of authority by a European court that enforces laws enacted only very tortuoursly via any democratic means. In the meantime the average law-abiding citizen gains nothing and sees the deterrent and punishment value of the criminal justice system further neutered. Oh and all of this has been funded by our taxes - the legal aid for the toerag who raped and murdered his niece, the judges, the courts and the redrafting of our laws. They laugh, we pay.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff