It didn't occur to me that prisoners not getting a vote is a human rights violation was for the simple fact that I don't see it as a human rights violation. If you are in prison, you have opted out of the society you live in. Why should you get a vote? Foreign nationals living abroad have, in a sense, also opted out of British society and they also don't get a vote. Equally, I have no problem with that. When your time is served, you rejoin society and your right to vote is restored to you, along with your right to go to the shops, drink in a pub or even, invisible space friend forbid, re-offend. I know that rights and responsibilities are meant to be entirely separate, and much of the time I agree with this principle but there are times when I think this stance is hopelessly foolish and naive. Oh wait - do I have the right to have, and to mention, my point of view of this issue?
danny alaxander what a dick, i heard him yesterday on the raidio slagging off Edinburgh and praising his party for the Scottish success story. what planet is he on?
Prisoners not getting a vote is not a human rights violation - provided they have been sentenced to disqualification from voting by the court. It's arbitrarily applying additional punishments to prisoners to which they have not been sentenced which is the problem. Voting just happens to be the issue in this instance, but the same principle would apply to any other additional punishment, e.g. arbitrarily lengthening a sentence, or arbitrarily adding an extra fine.
Peter I think the part that people take issue with isn't that these prisoners wanted to vote and couldn't. It is that some lawyer has told them that they can get a fat lump of cash for free from the crown/government. I'm sure of the 2000 odd cases very few had any real interest in the politics. And we should instruct the magistrates and judges to impose additional terms to disqualify people in prison from voting, until they are released back into the population. What I don't want to see is some raving loony party* offering to halve prisoners sentences if they get into power! *Insert your least favourite party here.
Indeed. All it needs is an Act of Parliament giving criminal courts the power to sentence convicts to loss of voting rights, and guidelines indicating for how long, for which offenders, and for which offences that power ought to be used. Then the whole problem is solved permanently. Simple.
I wonder why this has not been done? Stupidity? Or blocked by Libdems perhaps? If making this change a prison smoking ban could be included for good measure.
Despite what many believe, there are many illegal immigrants ( in so much as their student visas have run out) in this country that the government know where they are, know what they are doing but do nothing to make them leave. So how repealing the ECHR would change anything i have no idea.
Which presumably is why minorities such as "Travellers" enjoy all the rights conferred by the ECHR without the requirement to engage in behaviour considered acceptable by the rest of Society. Anyone who believes that Authorities uphold these rights equally, for every individual in every country on every occasion is seriously deluded: the ones who enjoy the most benefit are the minorities who have the backing of a legal team looking for a high profile case,funded by the taxpayer. An example:if there was genuinely,"a right to life",then the criminally insane murderer or terrorist would be locked up for life,thus protecting the rest of us from his/her murderous intent.However,the rights of the murderer will almost certainly supersede the rights of the rest of us.He/she has the right to life,we do not... Or the foreign career criminal,(that may be wanted in his own country) that deliberately impregnates a British woman in order to avoid deportatation to the country of his birth? And judges make mistakes all the time: if you get two believable people facing each other in court,(without physical supporting evidence),the Judge has to make a decision based on what he hears,and how good an act each sides lawyer can put on.Not his fault that it's the wrong decision a lot of the time. The ECHR is a Utopian vision,a statement of ,"what we'd like to have",or "how we'd like life to be" But like all regulation,it's open to interpretation,and abuse. Pete1950 would like to scare you into thinking leaving it would lead to mass murder and anarchy,but thats what lawyers always do.Nothing to say that an English bill of rights would not go even further in protecting our rights,but he doesn't mention that,(the old pro-EU bias creeping in,I suspect) And in this case there are a multitude of extremely wealthy human rights lawyers who enjoy the taxpayers largesse getting the Court to uphold these rights.They won't give it a up without a fight. If you believe wholeheartedly in the ECHR,you're in dreamland. Thats just the way it is
It amazes me that some on here do not understand the principles of human rights for ALL. Regardless of whatever circumstance. To protect OUR rights we must protect the rights of ALL. Its not rocket science but theres several people who cannot work that out due to their own internal bias and prejudices. Then they wonder why we need the ECHR. The irony is not lost on me.
Shame that quite often we do get half of that list sometimes. and as for Right to Life, not sure I agree with that one sometimes when there are mass murderers out there etc.
I agree its a difficult spill to swallow but human rights are absolutes. That includes mass murderers. Else we become no better than they.
Human rights are indeed absolutes, but that does not mean anybody is exempt from the law. People who commit crimes of violence or dishonesty have the right to be arrested, tried fairly, sentenced, and forced to serve their sentences. Everyone is under an obligation to pay their taxes. Everyone has to comply with rules about driving licences, planning permissions, passports, and a myriad of other things. Etc etc. This assertion that "human rights" means that some people are exempt from the obligations of society and the law is absolute piffle. It's rubbish right down at the Daily Mail level.
Good use of the word "piffle" I'm going to try and use it as much as possible today... "Quibble" is also a lot of fun...
Not sure I understand what you're saying here, we don't execute people so their right to life is upheld, we do lock them up for the rest of their lives if the case is severe enough, (see Myra Hindley, Peter Sutcliffe as examples) Could you provide some examples of this? Just one will do? No, thought not.
Being under obligation to do a thing, and the enforcement of same, are two separate issues. Sometimes the difference is miniscule - self-employed tradesmen on a job vs. traffic wardens, for instance. Sometimes the gulf between the two is vast - e.g. former American footballers not killing their partners, trespass laws as applied to certain "members of the community" :Hilarious: and such. The complaint here is not that the Law doesn't apply to certain folk, it's that the Law isn't applied to them.
1988: IRA gang shot dead in Gibraltar The IRA has confirmed the three people shot dead by security forces in Gibraltar yesterday were members of an active service unit. They are reported to have planted a 500lb car bomb near the British Governor's residence. It was primed to go off tomorrow during a changing of the guard ceremony, which is popular with tourists. The three - two men and a woman - were shot as they walked towards the border with Spain. Security officers say they were acting suspiciously and the officers who carried out the shootings believed their lives were in danger. The three dead have been named as Daniel McCann, 30 and Sean Savage, 24, both known IRA activists and Mairead Farrell, 31, the most senior member of the gang who had served 10 years for her part in the bombing of a hotel outside Belfast in 1976.
Can't even be arsed to search for the Foreign examples,too many to choose from...*yawn*..... In 2010 pensioner Ernest Wright was told he would spend the rest of his life behind bars after carrying out a shotgun execution 38 years after murdering another man The 70-year-old had served 26 years in prison for a 1971 killing when he was freed on life licence in 1999. Despite his release he continued to mix in criminal circles and carried out several night-time burglaries, police said. Then, in March three years ago, he gunned down Neville Corby, 42, after bursting into his home in Bradford, West Yorkshire.
Over 30 killers killed again after being freed from prison between 2000/1 and 2010/11, statistics show. Figures released by the Home Office show 29 people with homicide convictions went on to commit murder and six went on to commit manslaughter. Of those 29 murderers, 13 previously committed murder and 16 manslaughter. The government says it does all it can to protect the public from offenders "but sadly risk can never be eliminated entirely". One prisoner killed again while still in jail for killing his first victim, the Home Office report said.
