Jeremy Corbyn: Let prisoners have the right to vote

Jeremy Corbyn will consider campaigning to give prisoners the right to vote if he becomes Labour leader.
The Labour leadership candidate said he would follow demands by the European Court of Human Rights to allow convicted criminals the right to vote in British elections.
The court has ruled four times that Britain should lift its ban on prisoner votes but Parliament has refused to give way over the issue.

The 66-year-old left-wing politician supports the principle of overturning the historic ban on jailed convicts voting because he thinks it will help rehabilitate them.

MPs voted in 2011 to keep the ban on prisoner voting, despite the tough stance adopted by the European judges since 2005.

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "On the issue of prisoner voting, we are guided by the European Court of Human Rights."

His comments come as he also unveiled plans to consider introducing women-only train carriages in a bid to cut the number of sexual assaults on public transport.

Like that proposal, Mr Corbyn's comments about prisoner votes are likely to come under fierce criticism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11825485/Jeremy-Corbyn-Let-prisoners-have-the-right-to-vote.html

Hmmm. I'm undecided on this.
One the one hand, I think that don't deserve a voice when they have committed a crime, but on the other, I think that having a say in what's going on, may make them care enough to change??

Perhaps it would be a good idea that they're only allowed to vote once they've taken a "politics course" whilst in prison - this will perhaps get some people interested in education and also will hell them give informed choices.

eddie wrote:Hmmm. I'm undecided on this.
One the one hand, I think that don't deserve a voice when they have committed a crime, but on the other, I think that having a say in what's going on, may make them care enough to change??

Perhaps it would be a good idea that they're only allowed to vote once they've taken a "politics course" whilst in prison - this will perhaps get some people interested in education and also will hell them give informed choices.

Personally I don't believe having a say by voting is enough to make people change.  There has to be a desire to make a positive contribution to society and the support when prisoners have served their time to allow them to do so.

I guess it depends on the offence.  Take speeding for example.  You are eligible to attend a Speed Awareness Course if you are considered to be able to be rehabilitated by educational means.  The higher above the speed limit in which you are caught the less likely you are to be able to attend a course and will automatically attract a fine and points on your licence

Yes true FTL, it does depend on the crime committed.

I wouldn't ever suggest convicted murderers or paedophiles get a voice, or any violent crime for that matter.

more of the "prison is rehab" nonsense

what happened to prison is punishment?

F**k me what next....porn mags and movies for prisoners

a drop of booze?

you go to jail...you have NO rights except the most basic of security of person.

ie basic food, clothes, sleeping place and cover from the elements

and freedom from personal harm.

and THAT is it.....

Come off it Eddie... they had plenty of time to care and do the right thing before being in prison... and I'll bet that the vast majority never bothered voting before prison, and again most still wouldn't bother if given the chance while in prison.


There are quite a few arguments against allowing this...


Primarily that those in prison are being removed from society as a punishment and that regular rights and freedoms have to also be removed for this to be achieved.


If someone is violating decent society to such an extent as to be sent to prison then then they have no place participating in that decent and free society while being removed from it.


Plus, it is also not a good idea to allow as it will just give prisoners something else to argue about and would cause no end of conflict and trouble in such closed social environments.


And prisoners can already study a wide range of subjects inside if they choose to... I'm sure politics is very low on the list already... and I don't think a quick politics course to qualify for voting would be practical, objective, or impartial enough to be justified.


As well as all this... we are talking about a very small number compared to the total voting public... around 80,000 men in prison... many of these are foreign nationals anyway so already no right to vote here... the vast majority of the rest never bother anyway so we are left with a few thousand who might bother and that number will be scattered throughout the whole of the country...650 constituencies etc... so only a few in each really...


Is it really right, or worth the potential trouble it might cause...!?


Or extra costs etc...?


Or in principle to allow this...?


Isn't it far better to restrict freedoms and rights to prisoners through punishment, with them then being more appreciative of these things when returned to them when free...?

The average sentence is just over 15 months.  That means when prisoners come out they will probably still be under that same government that was election while they were in prison if an election is held then, and any government policies will effect them on the outside.

Nations where all prisoners can vote include Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland. Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine.
Most prisoners can vote in Cyprus and Romania, unless a judge says otherwise. In Malta, it is the other way around - most prisoners lose the vote, unless they are jailed for less than a year.

In Bulgaria, judges have the power to disenfranchise for life any offender jailed for more than 10 years. If a criminal receives a sentence of less than 10 years, they can still lose the vote. But it must be given back to them after a maximum of 20 years. Judges have so much discretion they can even remove the vote temporarily from criminals who are not jailed.
France has a very complex set of rules relating to the type of sentence because disenfranchisement is considered an additional penalty to be imposed as part of the sentence - and therefore it must be proportionate to the offence.
That means that some serious crimes lead to mandatory disenfranchisement - but far less serious crimes lead to temporary bans. Like Bulgaria, the exact nature of the ban is up to the trial judge. Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovakia have similar rules.
In Germany, prisoners lose the vote if they have been convicted of crimes that targeted the state or democratic order. That means that average burglars do not lose the vote, but someone convicted of an act of terrorism or political violence would. Norway and Portugal allow the vote unless a criminal is convicted in similar circumstances to those in Germany.
Italy and Greece applies varying degrees of bans. In both countries life sentence criminals lose the vote forever. Italian and Polish courts can ban a criminal from voting, even after his or her release.
Iceland confines its ban to serious offenders, arguing that such people have lost their civic right to vote by committing a crime that is "considered heinous by public opinion".
In Moldova and Monaco, prisoners can vote unless the courts say otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20447504

I don't think there should be a blanket ban.

Why not?

Because not every criminal and crime is the same?

You make some good points Tommy, but you can't treat every single person the same.

Corbyn is rapidly loosing his appeal to me......

typical lefty............. the criminals friend.

no balls and desperate for votes from ANYONE

It was lefty politics that led to the absurdity of criminals, breaking into your property and breaking a leg by tripping over your rake you have left out could sue you

It was lefty politics that led to the ridiculous situation that has only just been (very slightly) corrected, whereby you virtually had to "politely ask a burglar to leave...and if he refused there was virtually f**k all you could do about it, since the law stated "reasonable force" then promptly made several judgements that meant ANY force was unreasonable
it was lefties that for years refused to allow home owners to defend either themselves OR their property in a robust and suitable manner

and it is the "lefty influence" that STILL refuses to allow a "strike first" attitude to home and self defence

"reasonable cause" for caving in the skull of a burglar should, in any sane world be defined by the home owner "having reason to be concerned" that the intruder means harm.

and "harm" should be defined so as to include the "intent to deprive" the owner of goods etc that they have worked for and paid for....
gahhhhhh...it makes me puke...lilly livered so called civilised, useless bunch of cowards the lot of em.

lets face it...if you get burgled....just who? is punished

I'll tell you ...its you

firstly you have your home violated, and possibly YOU are assaulted
then...just to rub your nose in the shit
your insurance will go through the roof....

oh...and tell me...why cant your pet alsation be allowed to eat em? (animal welfare issues aside)

But surely we need to treat everyone the same as it is all in the name of 'equality' Eddie...!?


Why are the lefties constantly crying about this 'equality' and how everyone is equal etc.. but then crying that some are more equal than others...!?

eddie wrote:Because not every criminal and crime is the same?

You make some good points Tommy, but you can't treat every single person the same.

jail time is punishment....exclusion from society

if what you have done is bad enough for jail, you deserve to lose the vote for that time....

eddie wrote:Because not every criminal and crime is the same?

You make some good points Tommy, but you can't treat every single person the same.

does that matter eddie?

let's face it, prison is a last resort and many offenders are let off time after time before they even get to prison.  

if a person commits enough crimes and causes enough victims to suffer then eventually they may be sent to prison.

any crime is a crime and the person committing it is a criminal,,,,they should have no voting rights whatsoever.

I think the point Eddie is more getting at is petty crimes like drug offenses, which woud then be more the point that we should not be sending people to jail for some of these offenses.
That would be more the point to address and reduce the amount of people in jail that do not require being jailed for such offenses.
We need to send to jail people who deserve to go.
Decriminalize drugs, will thus then solve part of that issue here, as then all those who go to jail then rightly lose the right to vote.
So two different issues but see the point Eddie is getting at

victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:Because not every criminal and crime is the same?

You make some good points Tommy, but you can't treat every single person the same.

jail time is punishment....exclusion from society

if what you have done is bad enough for jail, you deserve to lose the vote for that time....

Absolutely agree Victor