Should Prisoners Have Voting Rights?

[Aussie]

Personally I agree with boxy, if they are citizens they should have the right to vote.

And it only took you 20 days to state your opinion. Fuck ~ you are pathetic.

[Super Nova]

This has been debated in the Uk and now in Australia.

My opinion while it may appear weak to boxy is further clarified below.

Don't change the status quo.

A prisoner has the right to vote if they are for less than 3 years is fair to me because:
1. It is less then the election cycle so they should have a say/vote on who is in power when they get out. It would be unfair for them to not have this right.
2. If they are greater than 3 years they forfeit this right as they will be voting for how society is governed and they will not be out to participate. They would only be voting on issues that improve their circumstances. (an assumption I know and there will be exceptions)
3. They have many right removed when they go to prison to protect society, to punish and hopefully give them time to reform.

What I would accept is no broad brush solution.

Why couldn't the judge determine if their right to vote for those over 3 years is to be removed. Guidance could be given.

A lifer for murder - no vote
A 5 year term for a while collar crime... - vote allowed.

Otherwise. Keep it the same.

I don't want to see a political candidates focusing on prisoners in marginal seats. The consequences could be bigger.

Also, I think it is fair to give up this right if you cannot live within the law society as set. You want to live outside the rules of society, get caught, your right to influence that society via voting is removed. On repaying your debt... it is re-instated.

[Aussie]

You are dumb as dog shit. Two years + 364 days = you bewdy you can vote. Three years + one second = you are an arsehole - you can't vote.

[Rorschach]

Personally I agree with boxy, if they are citizens they should have the right to vote.

And it only took you 20 days to state your opinion. Fuck ~ you are pathetic.

Frankly Useless I don't read every topic and this one was pretty low on my interest scale. It still is...

Got nothin but ad hom..? Then STFU loser.

[Aussie]

20 days ~ 38 minutes.

You are a suck hole. This is just another example. What say ye, "IQS?"

[Rorschach]

[boxy]

So far, the only person to give a reason to restrict prisoner's right to vote has been SN, and it's a painfully weak reason, really.

Voting is a right, and in fact a responsibility, in a healthy democracy. Prisoners have other rights taken away, as a punitive measure, however removing the right to vote has almost no effect on the prisoners themselves, and only diminishes us as a democratic society.

Perhaps you can explain then boxhead, why those who are in for less than three years retain the right to vote, and those three + one day don't?

(Good luck, because I can't.)

Being anti-prisoner is a free kick, politically, and standing up for their rights is a no win situation, for politicians.

[Super Nova]

You are dumb as dog shit. Two years + 364 days = you bewdy you can vote. Three years + one second = you are an arsehole - you can't vote.

That's what happens when you set a limit or rule like that.

I did suggest some judgement or discretion by the sentencing judge if you read my response. That would overcome the issues of a prescribed time. As a person familiar with the court system you offered no opinions on that.

You discounted that didn't you.

Now for my witty response.

You are dumber than dog shit.

[Super Nova]

Being anti-prisoner is a free kick, politically, and standing up for their rights is a no win situation, for politicians.

When the issue came up in the UK no party would touch it. It was a vote loser.

[Jasonofabitch]

This has been debated in the Uk and now in Australia.

My opinion while it may appear weak to boxy is further clarified below.

Don't change the status quo.

A prisoner has the right to vote if they are for less than 3 years is fair to me because:
1. It is less then the election cycle so they should have a say/vote on who is in power when they get out. It would be unfair for them to not have this right.
2. If they are greater than 3 years they forfeit this right as they will be voting for how society is governed and they will not be out to participate. They would only be voting on issues that improve their circumstances. (an assumption I know and there will be exceptions)
3. They have many right removed when they go to prison to protect society, to punish and hopefully give them time to reform.

What I would accept is no broad brush solution.

Why couldn't the judge determine if their right to vote for those over 3 years is to be removed. Guidance could be given.

A lifer for murder - no vote
A 5 year term for a while collar crime... - vote allowed.

Otherwise. Keep it the same.

I don't want to see a political candidates focusing on prisoners in marginal seats. The consequences could be bigger.

Also, I think it is fair to give up this right if you cannot live within the law society as set. You want to live outside the rules of society, get caught, your right to influence that society via voting is removed. On repaying your debt... it is re-instated.

Very sensible and I would have to agree.
Personally, I favour the 'old system' of Gaol - where the Prisoner is 'barred' from as much 'stimulation' of life as possible. This was the root purpose of a Prison. To deny stimulation, is to deny 'growth'. Think of a person like a VHS tape. If the 'same tape' is played over and over again, not only does the viewer wane, but the tape itself starts the blur, fade and eventually just show static. Basically - an inmate is 'broken down' (like a chipped rock) to his primal-basic state of being. This is the 'Cleansing' and from this, if the inmate doesn't die (see Papillion) from a lack of 'life' - then the rebuilding, reshaping and REHABILITATION of his nature can begin.
You got to wash the 'evil' out, rehabilitate them into a better person AND THEN let them back out into society. The is a root to all evil, and if you want the weed out - you got to get it our root and all ...not just spray it with a chemical that sterilizes the soil around it too.

Some Correctional Facility's on the other hand, are run by the Private Company GEO. It 'seems' to be a very successful strategy, that is recognised around the world as something 'good'. The help inmates get good education, skills, qualifications and more - to help them get ahead in the outside world. Apparently the results are really good.
I wonder if this just makes an evil person more 'qualified' to do their evil though?
I think its a great concept - but have they 'emptied the bucket of shit, before filling it with water' or are they just 'adding more water to the mix' ??

Isolation once brought a 'stagnated' end for 30,000 years to 'once' the most advanced civilisation on the planet. These peoples began their migration from the Caucasus Mountains region 40,000 years ago and travelled above India and through the rest of Asia in a very 'culturally' stimulating experience and this continued in 'waves' - into the Sahulian region and into the continent of Australia. Not until the Clovis Indians migrated into the America's about 15,000 years ago was there any real 'major migrations'. The difference between the Australian Aboriginal culture and the Clovis is - that the Clovis just left North/East Asia into 'empty lands' and passed not via other cultures along the way. The Clovis Indians waned quickly and basically vanished before the much later waves of Asiatic peoples walked into the Americas. The original 'Cultural Enrichment' that the Aboriginals experienced before arriving is probably what saved it through an Isolation of 40,000 years - which, if you look at how long other civilisations lasted for, its an amazing feat.
Sure the Aboriginals were 'trapped in time' (and always will be ), but I can't think of a more 'specialised' culture that exists today.

So back to the Prisoners and their 'rights' - well yes, I think the 3 years (less than a Parlimentary Term) is a justified reason to have an impact on our country's future.
I don't like the Mandatory Vote, but I see the sense of it - compared to the USA version.
I think it was when the Parliament 'Hung itself' (and the idea of Anarchy and being free from the Politicians =Yayy!! )
like a bunch of Criminals and Gillard, tried to 'FORCE US' to vote again the following Weekend...
...that I disapproved of.