h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

""the ultimate goal is to have the offender leave prison and become a productive member of society. Why would one remove from them one of the primary duties of a member of that society?""

why become rehabilitated to take your part in society if you already recieve all the benefits of society while incarcerated.

there is just no incentive there!!!?

That's really absurd. They're in prison!

3 meals a day, TV, roof over the head, bed, prison shop 1ce a week, showers, visits, work, education, gym, pay,

whats not missing???

Just for the record, here in Canada virtually no adult can be denied the right to vote, including convicted criminals and the mentally ill. The only adults not allowed to vote are the Chief and Deputy Returning Officers.

And, let me just look outside for a moment . . .




As I suspected: the country is still running along ticketyboo.

and if a non-elected body told you, you had to change your constitution because a portion of it was deemed ilegal by said non-elected body

what would the reaction be??

This has already happened in regards to a number of international treaties we have signed, not least in the 'free' trade agreement with the U.S.

Actually, I would argue that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a part of our constitution, was constructed specifically in the light of international norms to which we subscribe.

In any case, if your Parliament has ratified an agreement which binds it to be governed by the decisions of an international tribunal, than the law of your country, passed by your Parliament, binds your government to that governance, even to the extent of requiring an amendment to your constitution (not that you have one of those).


From wikiblurb:

'Unlike many nations, the UK has no single core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an uncodified, or de facto constitution. However, much of the British constitution is embodied in the written form, within statutes, court judgments, and *treaties*.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

If your Parliament wants to ignore its treaty obligations, that would be a de facto change to your constitution. Your constitution binds your Parliament to conform to rulings of the European whatzit. You may not like it, but that's what comes with signing treaties. The alternative is isolationism.

What are you more upset about, Taff?

That a bunch of unelected Europeans want to impose their will on your state,

or,

that they want to extend democratic rights to a segment of your population presently denied them.

both!!

Every international agreement, from the simplest trade deal to the International Criminal Court involves some degree of compromise of sovereignty, even if only in the fact that each country is agreeing to be bound by a document which was in part not written by that country. It is a gamble and a hope that the result will be a net benefit for all sides. Perhaps this human rights tribunal has brought about progress on other issues that is worth letting a few yobs in prison vote if they want to.

Prisoners should NOT vote! Why should they have a say in how the country is run? Surely that right went out the window once they are convicted?

Unconvicted prisoners I feel should vote, innocent untill proven guilty lark...

voteing is not be a right, its a privelige, to decide how your society is run is the responsability of the members of that society, prisoners have broken those laws, and have been removed from society, there for should not have a say in the running of society,

In my view voting is both a right and a responsibility, not a privilege.

^ correct

If they are gonna start giving them voting rights then they can start taxing their wages and VAt on their canteen

I suspect that you would find that prisoners who have an income large enough to be taxable in your jurisdiction are, in fact responsible for paying income tax. They certainly are in Canada.

Since they are taxed, should they not have the franchise that they may also have representation?






I'm sure that in the end we'll not come to an agreement: Canada (and Europe, it seems) views voting as a right and responsibility inalienable from the individual, Britain and the U.S. view it as a privilege to be removed at the discretion of the government.

I now which view I'm more comfortable with.

so murderers who have robbed someone of their vote, by killing them, should be rewarded by having their right to vote returned to them

that seems like an inequality

what about the victims basic human rights, the right to life??

The whole point of removal of liberty is surely that liberty is removed, no?

Nowhere has true universal suffrage - are children allowed to vote in Canada? The question is where the line is drawn. We do not deny all criminals the vote in Britain - only the ones who get caught and even then, only the ones deemed to have offended so seriously that they are incarcerated. The vast majority of convicted criminals in Britain don't lose their voting rights - those whose punishments are suspended, who are given fines, community service etc etc.

There's no uniform agreement on this in Europe either - it varies from state to state. It would therefore appear that different humans have different human rights depending where they are in Europe at the time, which is of course a nonsense. The ECHR was always intended to be a broad brush, capable of liberal interpretation to suit the vastly different traditions and cultures within Europe. It was also fundamentally about stopping dictators and preserving democracy. Ironic that it is being used to dictate against the will of democracy, no?

Individual countries should always be allowed room for interpretation of laws and the ECHR is wide open to interpretation. After all, the right to a family life is also enshrined in the ECHR - how does incarceration sit there? Surely imprisonment fundamentally denies this "right"?

Go way way way back,

What was prison?
Why was it invented?
and
What was its job?

Prison was made for criminals to be taken out of society to hopefully learn the errors of their ways.

Prison was ment to scare people, scare them into NOT comitting crime...

As far as I can see, Prison is becoming more and more appealing every year. Where will it end?

TV's, Playstations....I'll tell you now, it wont ever end...

Prison needs to be taken back to its roots...

Scary!
No Rights!
No TV
No Playstation
They even get FREE tobacco and canteen if they threat to self harm...

""(and Europe, it seems) views voting as a right and responsibility inalienable from the individual,""

not so, many countries do not allow prisoners the vote,

""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.""

so the land lady lost her vote, as long as the prisoner gets his, its ok then

""The Strasbourg-based court said each country could decide which offences should carry restrictions on voting rights.""

easy, we have decided, all offences that are subject to a custodial sentance.

'should be rewarded by having their right to vote returned to them'

It's not returned to them: it's never taken away.




as for the rest, I'm pretty sure you've heard this before, Taff:






two wrongs don't make a right.







Don't get me wrong, Taff: I completely understand the feeling of 'these dastards don't bloody deserve it'. But to me this issue is not about what is deserved. It is about legalities and treaty obligations (something very important here in Canada, largely a legacy of the time of British rule). This conversation is further emphasising to me what I have long felt and have been constantly more strongly convinced of: Canada has, through its history and by the conscious effort of its people and its leaders, become a fundamentally different society from both its neighbour the U.S. and one of it's mother countries, Britain.

I love a good debate....tho dont put maths infront of it in school as a joke....apparently my teacher didnt find it funny and i got a weekend detention lol