Controversial
Too dangerous?
Question Time inside a prison
- Thread starter Zarlak
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I'm sure all the necessary security precautions will be taken.
Personally, I'd strap an electric bracelet to each prisoner, as soon as he gets up to lunge at someone, just zap the shit out of him
Personally, I'd strap an electric bracelet to each prisoner, as soon as he gets up to lunge at someone, just zap the shit out of him
Sorry I meant dangerous as in is it a dangerous move, are the public ready for it? Does the public want to see it, do people care what convicts think/want etc
Should be interesting, I bet Jim Devine never thought he'd get on Question Time again.
Sad that there needs to be a debate about prisoner's rights.
Exactly, they don't deserve any. What about the right of their victims, eh??
What's the argument for prisoners not being allowed to vote?
Many are in jail for atrocities lesser than those committed by the people they vote for.
An ignorant racist can vote for a racist party, but a prisoner can't vote based on his political views?
Many are in jail for atrocities lesser than those committed by the people they vote for.
An ignorant racist can vote for a racist party, but a prisoner can't vote based on his political views?
Why would they want to? Many of them will never be affected by the policies brought in by the government they vote for (since they're going to be incarcerated for a long time) and they would be easily swayed with campaign promises from parties who are soft on crime.
In the US, the argument is that they made such a bad judgment call that they should not be entrusted with the judgment required in choosing a government.
The majority of prisoners will be out before the next general election, should they get a right to vote for the world they come back into?
Especially when you consider many of these are in prison for drug related crimes, something which is easily fixable but governments don't have the balls to do it.
No, I don't think they should.
I think the majority of voters are behind the government's stance on drugs anyway and would agree with incarcerations for such offenses. You talk as if everyone is government is under thirty, they're not. It's not a question of balls, it's a that they believe drugs are a destructive force in society and the majority of voters agree with that.
Makes sense to me.
That's a blanket reasoning though, and doesn't apply to many people who are behind bars, for a variety of reasons.
The US argument I've always found absurd. Not everyone in prison is there due to a bad judgement call, and besides, half the people who do vote are either not well informed enough, or not objective enough to be entrusted with choosing a government.
Why they would want to vote I reckon is irrelevant. Everyone has a right not to vote already, except for prisoners who have it enforced upon them despite it not being related to their crime
Yeah what you say is true about not everyone being in prison due to a bad judgment call but let's be honest, not everyone in prison is innocent, although they nearly all claim it.
They aren't part of society, that's the whole nature of prison these days (it's no longer about rehabilitation). They are sequestered from it, why should they be allowed to take part in one of the more important aspects of it?
Now, that's not to say I'm completely against the idea but there should be requirements attached to it. A few courses say on how the political system works and such being mandatory if a prisoner wants to take part would be helpful in the long term I think. But honestly I think those who'd want to would be few and far between.
I thought it was only those with felony convictions in the US who were restricted from voting? Even then it's a state issue, so differs from one state to another, there is no blanket 'American policy'.
They'd probably all vote Labour anyway, throw away the key.
Yeah that's correct, you don't even have to be in prison. Although most states follow similar policies, the general perception is the same as I indicated.
this.Yeah, but again, that last paragraph you could apply just as easily to the general populous. Most either can't be fecked, or don't educate themselves properly on what they're voting for, or side with a political party in much the same way they would a football team.
I don't think you can apply blanket reasoning unless the logic behind it applies to every single person it would cover, and in this case it doesn't. There will be those in prison who are better suited to vote than some of those outside of it, even if they are a minority.
I also think it's dangerous to view people in prison as no longer being part of society. If that was the case none of them would ever be released.
Well, I think they should.
And Portugal, as well as every other country with relaxed drug laws disagrees with you.
Aye, that is true. I detest those votes that come solely from blind allegiance to a political party. I vote where my interests lie and am certainly guilty of viewing people in the same way, which is where votes for prisoners gets sticky for me.
Sure, the Conrad Blacks of this world would make informed decisions, nothing to worry about there but again there's little that would be applicable to them in a campaign. Even if a party were to say they'd bring in a policy that's favourable to prisoners the rest of us probably wouldn't vote for them.
Not to mention the additional election machinery and guard duty required to allow them to cast votes, do we want to pay for that as well?
Being in prison completely restricts their freedoms, I'd say they certainly are not part of society while incarcerated.
How's Portugal's economy these days anyway?
What does economic mismanagement have to do with law and order?
In Portugal drug use has gone down, violence has gone down and people are getting the treatment they need for addiction rather than imprisonment which only worsens the condition, particularly in the UK where hard drugs are readily available in prisons.
Surely all that social care is driving up the deficit. How have they relaxed drug laws?
Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report - TIME
Essentially, they've decriminalised drugs and rather than imprisoning people they find with hard drugs the offer them treatment. They've gone from having the worst record in Europe to one of the best.
Oh and it's cheaper, cost effectiveness was one of the reasons for this move.
Personal amounts only, so there's likely a limit that the article didn't seem to mention. They'll still go after big dealers and the like.
I really think they missed the boat there, though. The best policy imo is legalize, regulate and tax. Surprised they did it with all drugs but it seems that the threat of jail is still there just that treatment is offered? (Apparently not on closer inspection) Surely they're still illegal but the law affords people a way to avoid persecution? Do you know if there are people who refuse treatment multiple times and end up incarcerated?
But Portugal is a small country and this likely works for them. Most country's drug laws are harsh on the causal or even chronic users who are caught in possession but my point remains that the majority of voters in those countries agree with those policies. My own beliefs have nothing to do with the facts.
The users themselves are too apathetic to get involved to facilitate such change in the main anyway so it's going to be a while before most countries catch up in that sense.
The article also fails to mention that the only reason they made this change was a HIV pandemic, HIV was being spread through drug users sharing needles etc. There is a limit on the amount of drugs people can have, cannabis for example I think it's about 9 plants that you can grow.
Also, they don't let people deal drugs. If you're caught dealing they throw the kitchen sink at you. The only thing they've decriminalised is drug use and the police don't waste their time on small time junkies.
I agree with you, they should be fully legalised and taxed to death like Alcohol and Tobacco.
This works as the argument for allowing them to vote for me. There'd be little point in any party trying to woo prisoners with policies relating directly to them, because most people simply aren't in jail and wouldn't be sympathetic towards such a move. So there's effectively no danger in allowing a prisoner to vote.
What has to be considered is that there may be a few people within the prison system who do take a genuine interest in the political direction and governing of the country, and I don't see any reason why their vote should be denied, while some EDL lunatic roaming the streets can stroll down to a polling station and cast a vote, whilst making monkey noises at anyone who's skin is darker than theirs (I saw this happen in person last week).
It's a backwards system. If you're going to allow everyone a right to vote, you have to allow everyone a right to vote, or at least have some more relevant borderline for voiding that right than "because you committed a crime"
There wouldn't be that much required. A few ballot papers and a means to communicate votes to their constituencies. Besides, I'm already paying billions of pounds for a bunch of aircraft carriers to piss around pointlessly in the atlantic...I'm hardly going to get all flustered over a few extra polling personell.
Vast majority wont spend the rest of their life behind bars though, and are still recognised as British citizens. I just don't coalate a right to freedom with a right to be recognised as a citizen of your own country. We stopped shipping them off to Australia a long time ago.
9 plants is a lot, especially somewhere with a lovely outdoor growing climate like Portugal. You could grow one crop every two years.
Yeah I'll concede that point to you. It would be political suicide but I still think most of them would vote left because those parties are believed to be softer on crime and such.
I doubt there would be many of those types. They're mostly interested in themselves. Anyway, they should be made to jump through a few hoops if they want to, you know, earn the right back.
How about because you are incarcerated and included within that restriction on your freedom is losing the right to vote. Such a forfeiture is fair to me.
Anyway the rest is getting off tangent.
Some prisoners want to vote.
Well don't be criminals then because while you are inside prison you can't.
How fecked up is this thinking, we have people who can't follow the laws but want to have a say in passing them. Then someone we never voted for and can't vote out says we have to let them vote. It all seems really strange to me.
How much will it cost?
Well don't be criminals then because while you are inside prison you can't.
How fecked up is this thinking, we have people who can't follow the laws but want to have a say in passing them. Then someone we never voted for and can't vote out says we have to let them vote. It all seems really strange to me.
How much will it cost?
A lot of politicians have this problem too, yet they're allowed to legislate.
The whole problem with prisoners voting is very hypocritical IMO.
Put them in prison, they can't vote or legislate from there.
It's ironic because they make the laws which prevent this from happening.
The right to vote should not be dependent upon the unpalatability of the vote or voter, I'm afraid.
What you fail to see is that the law is not stationary, it is ever evolving. If someone is sent to prison for an offence that they don't think should be illegal, then it is crucial that they have a vote so this can be represented in parliament.
Should someone sent to prison for being gay have had their vote taken away? The law is not some infallible text, it is a human construct which needs the participation of society - all of it - to help define.
That's making the presumption that they'd be small minded enough to vote based purely on their current personal circumstance, which would be highly unlikely to change in anycase.
You could say that most public sector workers would have voted Labour because the Tories were threatening to cut their jobs. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Don't entirely disagree with this, but again, you're making the presumption that every or nearly every person in jail is blatantly taking the piss out of the laws of the society they live in. Not every crime carrying a jail sentence is premeditated, evil, or even on purpose.
Also, a majority of people vote primarily with self interest. Again, it's trying to preclude people from voting based on them not being noble enough to do so. If you scrutinise, a majority of people aren't noble enough to do so, and chances are, the ones you, me or anyone else would judge as noble enough, would also by in large happen to share the same political views as ourselves.
In short, no one should be able to judge who is and isn't allowed to vote, because no one is really fit to.
Yeah. The rules are made clear so I don't think anyone currently in prison has too much to complain about in that regards. It's more about whether the right to vote should be included in the restrictions on your freedom in the first place. I don't think it should, as in a lot of cases it'd have little or no relevance to your crime, and in some cases your crime may be an area of political debate.
People will vote where their interest lies, noods. We agree on that much.
Part of the punishment for committing a crime is that restriction of freedoms that comes with incarceration. Perhaps not being able to vote will make some folks realize that they should follow society's rules and laws more carefully and make them more participatory or at least think before they act. It seems to me that removing such a right is actually the biggest punishment that can be doled out for those offenses and as such, makes perfect sense. Taking the choice of participation in democracy away effectively takes away the last vestige of freedom a person can have.
Voting isn't a freedom, it's a right.
they're the same thing where I'm from.