Government set to allow convicted prisoners to vote

[dipsydoodle]

Convicted prisoners will get the right to vote, the government is expected to announce later this week.

Five years ago the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled the UK's ban on inmates voting was unlawful.

The government has been advised that continuing to resist the ruling would lead to compensation payouts costing millions of pounds.

Convicted killer John Hirst said prisoners had to have a legitimate channel to air their grievances.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

[miscsoc]

1. This won't mean that all prisoners will be able to vote

The current ban does probably violate our treaty obligations, but other european countries still prevent rapists and murderers and so on from voting. Personally I think all prisoners should have the right to vote.

[mackerel]

2. Didn't this guy beat a woman to death?

That would make him a murderer and he should have the right to vote?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/humberside/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9151000/9151866.stm

[Nihil]

4. If he used "diminished responsibility" to dodge the murder charge ...

... surely that excludes him from voting anyway?

Or has the EU also stepped in with regards to the UK not allowing Lords
or the insane (yes, oxymoronic) to vote as well as criminals?

:shrug:

IMO, the deprivation of a criminals vote is no more inhumane than the
deprivation of his/her freedom once proved guilty so I believe the EU
are barking up the wrong tree with this one from the start but WTH ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Diminished Responsibility doesn't have to be permanent

It was a violent crime; he turned himself in before it was discovered, but I don't doubt he would have been prime suspect, and caught quickly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8103007/Votes-for-prisoners-John-Hirst-profile.html

I'd agree the courts should be able to deprive prisoners of the vote; but that it might be better for it to be an explicit part of the sentence. Some other European countries have regulations about what sentences allow voting, while some give all, or no, prisoners the vote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11676456

We allow MPs and MEPs to keep their seats (and salaries, at least in the case of MEPs; I'm not sure, but Parliament may have the power to suspend payment and/or chuck out MPs, but MEPs' jobs are bombproof for that year) if their jail term is less than a year. You'd think the public would keep their vote in a similar case too ...

[Nihil]

6. I agree with both of those points

> but that it might be better for it to be an explicit part of the sentence.
+
> You'd think the public would keep (MPs/MEPs) vote in a similar case too ...

True enough ... there is room for improvement on this and one of the suggestions
in your link seems pretty fair:
>> For instance, a judge could decide that a man convicted of murder should be
>> sentenced to life with a minimum recommendation of 20 years in prison, and
>> lose the right to vote for 20 years.

Seems to fit the bill all round really: no broad-brush default deprivation but
still applying punishment where applicable.


ETA:
> "Diminished Responsibility doesn't have to be permanent"
Neither is the current situation - the person is only barred from voting whilst
in prison, not once they've served their sentence.