[Deltron]

Personally I think prisoners should be able to vote.

Whilst it is easy to think of prisoners as bad people, breaking the law doesn't necessarily make you a bad person and the majority of prison inmates are not violent. A large number of people break the law not because they necessarily want to but because they feel they need to, people who are addicts or are poor or have mental issues for example. You also get people that are innocent but are wrongly sentenced and whilst this isn't true in the majority of cases it is something that can and far too often does happen.

Prisoners are human beings, whilst they might be kept apart from much of society they are still a part of society. Whilst some prisoners will just be bad people, many prisoners are in prison as a result of the failings of society so their vote should be no less valuable than that of anyone else and in several areas they are likely to be better informed.

Painting all prisoners with the same brush by dehumanising them is, in my opinion, ultimately self defeatist as it makes it harder for them to be part of society, increasing the likelihood of repeat offending. I think if politicians had to better understand prisoners, which they would need to do if they wanted their votes, it would only benefit justice systems which in turn would benefit wider society.

Agreed.

[Three of Seven]

Violence isn't the only issue, fraud is also a crime and makes them a risk to an electoral process, another problem is self serving politicians who might choose their words carefully so they can get support from a prison population to boost their votes because some politicians only care about getting elected.

If we look at violence or even lower levels of intimidation, the results from a prison could easily be skewed, you can't guarantee the safety of other inmates, therefore they can be intimidated to vote they way someone wants them to. If results don't go the way of the physical power in a prison, it has potential to cause trouble.

There are many problems, fraud, corruption and violence are just some of them. All in all, if you commit a crime, no matter how petty, you should be punished for those actions.

[Christopher Halsey]

Violence isn't the only issue, fraud is also a crime and makes them a risk to an electoral process,

Electoral fraud is probably even less likely to happen in a prison because it is a more closed system, if you are going to say people can't vote because the risk of electoral fraud exists then no-one would be eligible to vote.

another problem is self serving politicians who might choose their words carefully so they can get support from a prison population to boost their votes because some politicians only care about getting elected.

I think that is a pretty fallacious argument, politicians trying to appeal to a specific group by telling them what they want to hear is a risk that exists with every group and demographic that there is, you could apply the same reasoning to say that doctors should not have the right to vote because politicians might try to appeal to doctors.

If we look at violence or even lower levels of intimidation, the results from a prison could easily be skewed, you can't guarantee the safety of other inmates, therefore they can be intimidated to vote they way someone wants them to. If results don't go the way of the physical power in a prison, it has potential to cause trouble.

Anyone can be intimidated or pressured in to voting a certain way. Ultimately the act of voting is private so I don't see why there would be any more risks associated with it in prison then there would be anywhere else. The risk of violence in prisons and the ability of the prison system to protect inmates is a failing in the prison system not in the electoral one.

There are many problems, fraud, corruption and violence are just some of them. All in all, if you commit a crime, no matter how petty, you should be punished for those actions.

No-one has suggested that criminals should be immune to punishment.

[Three of Seven]

Electoral fraud is probably even less likely to happen in a prison because it is a more closed system, if you are going to say people can't vote because the risk of electoral fraud exists then no-one would be eligible to vote.

Actually it's more likely, not by the prisoners themselves but corrupt officials, prisoners vote without voting, I believe it has happened in a number of countries, though I don't believe it has happened on a large scale in a western country. Voting fraud already happens and will continue to happen in the free world, put criminals together and the risk of fraud goes up. I don't know if fraud would be an issue, nor do you, nor does anyone, you look at the risk, same way banks look at financial risk, John Doe has a poor history of paying back small loans, do we give him another? Probably not.

I think that is a pretty fallacious argument, politicians trying to appeal to a specific group by telling them what they want to hear is a risk that exists with every group and demographic that there is, you could apply the same reasoning to say that doctors should not have the right to vote because politicians might try to appeal to doctors.

Doctors at a local level are a minority group (even on a national level) and so, no use trying to speak to them. I don't have a map of prisons and electoral wards they would fall under, but if a prison population was significant enough to swing the vote locally, it might have an effect on the message put out.

Anyone can be intimidated or pressured in to voting a certain way. Ultimately the act of voting is private so I don't see why there would be any more risks associated with it in prison then there would be anywhere else. The risk of violence in prisons and the ability of the prison system to protect inmates is a failing in the prison system not in the electoral one.

Anyone can and are intimidated in voting a certain way in some countries, it's naive to believe that no matter what, voting is going to be private, when an environment is toxic, expect toxic results. As for violence in prisons, there's no real way to stop it other than keeping prisoners in cells on their own and not letting them interact, they will always find a way, people are clever when they want to be and can find ways to cause harm. Look at all the smuggling that goes on, it's crazy.

No-one has suggested that criminals should be immune to punishment.

Don't create arguments I never made! I did not say anyone suggested that, silly!

Why should the person elected to represent me be in part chosen by people who have caused harm of some form to others, potentially in the area I live?

A prisoner who lives in say Manchester was sent to a prison in London, now they get to vote for a London politician when the decision in the end might not effect them, that would be silly. Unless we are having postal votes for prisoners as well.

Disenfranchisement is an acceptable form of punishment in my eyes for those currently serving time in prison, once they are out, they can vote again.

This is all my opinion, I won't change it, I don't want a criminal having a say in who represents me when it won't impact their life. My opinion is as right and as wrong as yours.

[Christopher Halsey]

Actually it's more likely, not by the prisoners themselves but corrupt officials, prisoners vote without voting,

Again though you've made a point that isn't unique to prisoners, you could have corrupt officials anywhere, why should prisoners not only be blamed but have less rights because of that?

Doctors at a local level are a minority group (even on a national level) and so, no use trying to speak to them. I don't have a map of prisons and electoral wards they would fall under, but if a prison population was significant enough to swing the vote locally, it might have an effect on the message put out.

Since this is a hypothetical scenario I don't think you can say that doctors are a minority group, in our hypothetical scenario we could be talking about a town entirely of doctors but for arguments sake let's pick a different group. Let's say the armed forces, there are a lot of areas where they make up a more significant portion of the population so by the reasoning that you have employed they should not be allowed to vote purely on the basis that there are a lot of them grouped in one place and share something in common so politicians might take advantage of this to try to appeal more to them in order to get their votes. The good thing is that in countries where prisoners do get to vote they usually vote in the constituency of their home address which eliminates the concern about having too many of them in one place.

Anyone can and are intimidated in voting a certain way in some countries, it's naive to believe that no matter what, voting is going to be private, when an environment is toxic, expect toxic results. As for violence in prisons, there's no real way to stop it other than keeping prisoners in cells on their own and not letting them interact, they will always find a way, people are clever when they want to be and can find ways to cause harm. Look at all the smuggling that goes on, it's crazy.

So if you are admitting that intimidation can happen anywhere why is it being used as an argument against prisoners?

As for identifying who you voted for there is no additional risk of this happening in a prison but voting cards don't have any personally identifiable information on them, the only way anyone could know who you voted for is if they were standing next to you watching you fill it out.

Don't create arguments I never made! I did not say anyone suggested that, silly!

You said, and I quote "All in all, if you commit a crime, no matter how petty, you should be punished for those actions." which was a statement that no-one had disagreed with which is what I stated.

Why should the person elected to represent me be in part chosen by people who have caused harm of some form to others, potentially in the area I live?

Why should the person elected to represent me be in part chosen by people I don't like or agree with? Don't forget as well that lots of people have done bad things or broken laws without going to jail and lots of people have gone to prison without necessarily harming others, yesterday I saw a cyclist on the footpath, that's against the law should they not get to vote?

To answer your question as to why I think they should get to vote, they are part of society, that they are not necessarily bad people, that they have not necessarily done harm to other people, that their insights in to society are just as valid and in some circumstances likely to be more informed than your average voter and that by dehumanising them you are more likely to make it difficult to them to re-integrate in to their local communities upon release thus making it more likely they will re-offend.

But let me turn the question around, why shouldn't they be able to vote? What real tangible advantages are there to denying prisoners the ability to vote? How does it benefit society?

[Three of Seven]

Why should the person elected to represent me be in part chosen by people I don't like or agree with? Don't forget as well that lots of people have done bad things or broken laws without going to jail and lots of people have gone to prison without necessarily harming others, yesterday I saw a cyclist on the footpath, that's against the law should they not get to vote?

Can't do much about a miscarriage of justice, it'll always happen and there are far more important things that you lose other than the right to vote. The right to vote would be pretty far down my list of priorities if I was locked up. As for the cyclist going down the footpath, I believe that's a civil law and not a criminal law, so it's not a criminal offence. But we're also talking about prisoners, not civil offences, as annoying as littering is, it's not a criminal offence.

But let me turn the question around, why shouldn't they be able to vote? What real tangible advantages are there to denying prisoners the ability to vote? How does it benefit society?

Why should they be able to vote? Voting doesn't suddenly make you a good person, it won't change you, if you're going to be a bad person all your life, you're going to be a bad person all your life.

What advantage is there to allowing them to vote? There are none on both sides of the coin.

How does allowing prisoners to vote benefit society? It doesn't.

This is an argument that comes down to your own beliefs, to try and force an opinion one way or the other on this issue is futile. In prison, you are removed from society and therefore, lose your voice, that is my stance, it is as simple as that. Why? Because crime sucks.

The problem with rehabilitation in prisons is also a topic for another debate, the biggest problem is that it's better inside for some people than it is outside, they have a roof and get fed. There's also the fact that if you have nothing to lose, you don't care about the consequences of your actions. Voting won't help rehabilitate, there's no magic cross in a box that can cure it, the only thing that will work is to fix the root causes.

I really don't have anything more to say on the subject.

[Kains]

I dunno if this helps the discussion, since it seems to have run it's course in some areas, but here in Canada we allow prisoners to vote.

Their vote is for the region that they last lived in.

The reasoning behind the change was that 'they are Canadian citzens and should be held to the same standards as the rest', which I find a rather interesting stance as it implies voting as a duty or chore, rather than a right.

However, I believe we incarcerate around 14k in a country of 30million, so the less than 1/1000th of a percent means incredibly little.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Christopher Halsey]

What advantage is there to allowing them to vote? There are none on both sides of the coin.

How does allowing prisoners to vote benefit society? It doesn't.

I have provided more than one advantage to allowing them to vote in my previous posts but I don't believe anyone has yet provided any advantages to not allowing them to vote.

I get that people have different personal opinions but this is a debate, the expectation is that you present a case. So far the only case anyone has put forward is effectively "prisoners have done something wrong so shouldn't be able to vote" but that is an opinion not a rational argument, it isn't backed up by anything, it isn't a causal relationship, that one must follow the other, you could just as easily say "prisoners have done something wrong so they shouldn't be allowed sandwiches".

[Kains]

Well, to play devil's advocate, what if someone is in jail for cheating on a voting system? Or electoral fraud?

Our systems of voting are not perfect, and have come down to a difference of 1 or 2 pts, I'll use Hillary versus Sanders as an example instead of the more obvious one right now, and who better to come up with a way to circumvent the process then a bunch of criminals with time on their hands?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Caymen Greener]

I voted no, although I don't feel terribly strongly about this issue. I think the point that was raised against their voting is that, in committing a crime, you lose certain rights: you can't earn (hardly any) money, you don't get contact with the outside world as much, your schooling options are limited, etc. And you don't get to vote. I just think it is one of the costs of committing a crime. Again, it's my opinion.

As for disadvantages to their voting, there may not be that many. I think there is validity in the ease of corruptability as Three mentioned. I don't have much background info on that, but I can totally see their votes not exactly being fair. In an ideal system this would not be an issue, but we do live in a broken world.

Another disadvantage for voting, which was answered a bit by The Kains, is the location in which they vote. This is a small one, as you just do absentee ballots. But it is a logistical issue to handle.

There are probably reasons to explain away the disadvantages, but as some of us "No" voters feel, it's all about rights. You lose certain rights when you go to prison, and voting can/should be one of those. Could you maybe earn that back (like you get time off for good behavior)? Sure. But in general, criminals should lose that right, and I think that opinion rather than "logistics" or whatever is what will answer most people's vote.

[Stormy]

While the humanistic approach is popular these days, it is not always the appropriate one.

First, a person who goes to prison for a misdemeanor offense does not lose their privilege to vote. Yes, voting is a privilege and not a right. Those who commit felonies in the U.S. lose their privilege to vote in all but two states for varying lengths of time. In my state, Georgia, a felon loses their privilege to vote until their prison sentence and any probation or parole requirement has been completed.

This is a logical requirement. While, as some have pointed out, not all felons are bad people (and I completely agree), the public must be assured that person IS, in fact, worthy of the privilege and will intergrate back into society before restoring the voting privileges.

As for the ability to find gainful employment, there are no laws which prohibit that. It is purely societal and no laws will be able to correct that. It must come from the minds and hearts of people.

[Jackie Weaver]

I believe prisoners should be allowed to vote, even if they are currently imprisoned. They are after all, still citizens regardless if they are criminals or not, and as a citizen, you do have the ability to vote.

Patrick Stewart summed it up for me in this video:



I have always seen prison not as punishment, but a place that is meant to rehabilitate. Taking away their rights one after another would do nothing but be detrimental to that end.

[Bar'ol]

Boils down to human rights imo. Those that see criminals as scum of the earth and must be eradicated, or flower picking don't take way their rights away because they are still human. I think I made myself clear with my first post which party im with, lol. Honestly, we want to talk about "good" felons if you were convicted for a crime um good goes out the window. lol. However, on the other hand I do believe in second chances and yadda yadda.

Next question to ask is, If these criminals weren't in jail or prison would they even care about some fool trying to get in office. My logical guess is no they dont. Either A: wanted by authorities/ B: Too high to understand what is going on around them. C: Only right they care about is FREEDOM, lol. I take this logic to the actual prisons around the world, how many actual care what government official or rules are happening outside their prison walls I'd say 1.2% actually care about it. What will happen if they could vote they will be forced to choose a candidate they dont know anything about or as Three has stated a couple of times corruption. The Warden could tell his entire population of inmates who to vote for.

Take a look at this: http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/
....Only 57% of Americans voted in 2012 election > the most important election to elect our leader only 57% soooo sad. I just stake my head at that.

As I'm writing this some of what I said seems harsh to individuals that may be severing and are "good" however just how I see it. If you are convicted for whatever crime, you are guilty. UFP is a global community site you take that however you want. I dont know every counties laws. Guilty in my book means culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing. (good old oxford definition)

Another link to look at I guess for US system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison..._United_States

[Jackie Weaver]

Honestly, we want to talk about "good" felons if you were convicted for a crime um good goes out the window. If you are convicted for whatever crime, you are guilty. Guilty in my book means culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing

What about people who have been wrongfully found guilty, convicted and sentenced, are they still considered "bad" and therefore have their right to vote taken away from them?

Next question to ask is, If these criminals weren't in jail or prison would they even care about some fool trying to get in office.

But for those prisoners who DO want to vote for whatever reason, the option is still there for them to do so, and if they don't want to, then fine. It's all about giving them the freedom to to decide for themselves if they want to vote or not.

[Bar'ol]

But for those prisoners who DO want to vote for whatever reason, the option is still there for them to do so, and if they don't want to, then fine. It's all about giving them the freedom to to decide for themselves if they want to vote or not.

I guess I see it as a duty not as a right honestly. In that case prisoners should vote however the question was asked in a different manner; should they have the right? My answer is no.

What about people who have been wrongfully found guilty, convicted and sentenced, are they still considered "bad" and therefore have their right to vote taken away from them?

Well, I did say "If you are convicted for whatever crime, you are guilty. Guilty in my book means culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing" with that it doesn't matter what type of person you are. I suppose that also means you lose certain rights that go along with it.