View Full Version : Quick Poll - Prisoners
Alexander Rowe
03-Mar-05, 16:21
Charles Kennedy has said that prisoners should be given the right to vote. Do you agree ?
Yes! but only after they have served a minimum of 100 years.
If prisoners were given the vote it will not change the political landscape though being in prison means that your liberty is taken away and that to me extends to the right to vote. Also, I don't think the prison officers want a biannual charade of guarding prisoners queuing up to the poll booths or posting hundreds of proxy ballot papers.
Save it, they did the crime they should do the time.
doreenhedgehog
03-Mar-05, 17:08
No,No,No,No,No!! [mad]
Is this what we've come to? If we carry on the way we are going, some people would find prison a good alternative to their current lifestyle.
Rubha_an_Tuir
03-Mar-05, 17:10
Why's Charlie after the incarcerated voter? Are things getting that bad for him? Captive Canvassing is it?
All those in prison, vote Lib Dem...........oh dear......I think he's been at the Glenmorangie again.
Seriously, I think allowing prisoners to vote would be opening a can of worms that would be of no benefit. merely a burden. Voting is a right of freedom.
Don't you have to pay (or at least register to pay) council tax to gain the ability to vote? Personally, I think that prisoners should lose the right to vote for the number of years they serve AFTER they come out of prison. Not that I'd imagine most of them would mind, they've already made irrecoverable changes to someone's world, thats why they're locked up.
BTW Is Alexander Rowe representing the Alexander Rowe prisoners or the Death Rowe prisoners? Sorry I couldn't resist it! :)
No thats the whole object of prison you lose you rights.If they want to be treated properly then they should act accordanley.
Absolutely, yes.
Our democratic system is hollow enough as it is without denying 74,000+ people the right to participate in the few chances we do get to influence the government… especially since that government seems hell-bent on giving itself the power to incarcerate people without having to prove (or even press) any charges!
I agree that prison is a place of retribution; but it is also a place for rehabilitation.
I see no punishment-value in withdrawing the right to vote (seriously – do you think many prisoners cry themselves to sleep at night because they aren’t allowed to cast a ballot?)… but I can see rehabilitation-value in showing somebody the way that our society works and in showing them that yes, even they can influence their environment. Following that lesson with, “Ah, but you’re a criminal so I’m afraid you’re excluded from the whole process” is hardly going to help.
jjc next u will be wanting to give them holidays away from the prison.People that are in prison have no respect for society and have done terrible crimes thats why there in prison if they want to keep any of there rights then they should behave themself and stop commiting crimes there is far too much do gooders going about.
jjc next u will be wanting to give them holidays away from the prison.People that are in prison have no respect for society and have done terrible crimes thats why there in prison if they want to keep any of there rights then they should behave themself and stop commiting crimes there is far too much do gooders going about.
Eddie, I’m afraid I find that point of view (and it’s a common one) blinkered and shortsighted.
Now, we can head in the direction of the US, and seek to lock up as many people as possible for every possible infringement of the law, throw away every notion of rehabilitation, and we can take on the massive tax burden as a result. For example, "in 2000, one out of three young Black men was either locked up, on probation, or on parole (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Prison_System.html)".
Or we can heed the lessons of other European countries who seek to take away the freedoms of prisoners and nothing else.
I believe that we should have many small prisons so that prisoners can remain local, are able to work (yes, I know you’ll think that’s absurd) and still see their families. I believe that we should take away nothing but their freedom.
Instead, we send prisoners hundreds of miles from their homes, doing our very best to ensure their estrangement from their families. We decide that rehabilitation is a nonsense idea, so we don’t bother with any notion of education or training or work, thus ensuring it’s as difficult as possible for them to re-engage in society when they get out of prison.
Having ensured they have no family life and barely any chance of finding a job, we then expect them to turn into suitable working tax-payers when they leave prison. When they then commit another crime instead, we roll our eyes and say “See! Told you! That rehabilitation idea is rubbish!”
No,No,No,No,No!! [mad]
Is this what we've come to? If we carry on the way we are going, some people would find prison a good alternative to their current lifestyle.
Oh, come on! Let’s inject a little realism into this issue, shall we?
Looking at, for example, women prisoners in Scotland, 37% of women prisoners have attempted suicide (http://www.adsw.org.uk/documents/conference_criminal/andrewcoyle.speech.doc).
If you have a look at this site (http://www.rethinking.org.uk/facts/system.shtml), you’ll find –
• More than 60% of women prisoners are mothers; almost half of these have dependent children.
• Only 5% of the 8000 plus children whose mother is imprisoned remain in the family home.
• The offences for which women are imprisoned are less serious than those committed by men, including 149 fine defaulters in 2000.
• More than 32% of women in prison are first offenders.
This country locks up women for not paying fines!! We virtually guarantee that their children will be taken into care because they didn’t pay fines. Since prisoners are “13 times more likely to have been in care as a child (http://www.adsw.org.uk/documents/conference_criminal/andrewcoyle.speech.doc)” compared with the general population, this is helping to perpetuate a vicious cycle within these families, as their children will now be at a higher risk of ending up in prison too. All because of unpaid fines? Or an unpaid TV licence?
So tell me again, do you really think that anyone would find prison to be an attractive lifestyle??!!
doreenhedgehog
03-Mar-05, 21:15
Drutt, anybody with a hint of realism in their head would have realised that comment was tongue in cheek. The fact is too many people don't see prison as a deterent for crime anymore. That's because of people like you and your leftie PC cronies, who are too busy trying to 'do the right thing', and make yourselves into some kind of crusaders for human rights that you miss the whole point.
It's a good job the majority of the British people still feel that victims are more important than criminals, and want to see people punished for their crimes.
The fact is too many people don't see prison as a deterent for crime anymore. That's because of people like you and your leftie PC cronies, who are too busy trying to 'do the right thing', and make yourselves into some kind of crusaders for human rights that you miss the whole point.
It's a good job the majority of the British people still feel that victims are more important than criminals, and want to see people punished for their crimes.
So you didn't actually read anything in the website links I gave then?
I know several people who have served one or more prison sentences. Only one of them has said it has deterred him from criminal activities. The rest seem to accept it as part of their lifestyle and one looks on Porterfield (Inverness prison) as some kind of winter holiday where he is well fed and kept warm.
Enough said I think!!
Kenimac1, as you don't feel that prison works in terms of either retribution or deterrence, may I ask what you'd propose for dealing with criminals?
Kenimac1, as you don't feel that prison works in terms of either retribution or deterrence, may I ask what you'd propose for dealing with criminals?
Shoot them?
Shoot them?
Which would achieve what exactly? Don't tell me, let's not bother with a curfew for hooligans, let's just shoot them. That'll fix society's problems.
Seriously though, I was looking for considered alternatives.
doreenhedgehog
03-Mar-05, 21:54
Dratt - I feel you are missing the point once again. Prison is the answer, but not if your types keep trying to make it like Butlins.
Headfog - what would you propose we use prisons for? Do you really feel it is helpful to lock people up, subject them to a criminal culture, then throw them back into the world virtually unemployable?
doreenhedgehog
03-Mar-05, 22:06
I propose we use prisons for their original purpose as opposed to a holiday home for criminals. Now there's a good idea, dontcha think? ;)
"Do you really feel it is helpful to lock people up, subject them to a criminal culture, then throw them back into the world virtually unemployable?"
er, well...yes.
And there is an alternative - don't go to prison, as most people choose to do.
"Do you really feel it is helpful to lock people up, subject them to a criminal culture, then throw them back into the world virtually unemployable?"
Do you think it's helpful to let these people roam around free and continue to rob and commit crimes against the innocent? Arguably prison might do no good as a deterent but at least it keeps them off the streets for a wee whilie.
Shoot them?
Which would achieve what exactly? Don't tell me, let's not bother with a curfew for hooligans, let's just shoot them. That'll fix society's problems.
Seriously though, I was looking for considered alternatives.
Well, wouldn't it?
Do you think it's helpful to let these people roam around free and continue to rob and commit crimes against the innocent? Arguably prison might do no good as a deterent but at least it keeps them off the streets for a wee whilie.
I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't have prisons. On the contrary. Kenimac appeared to be suggesting that they are pointless, which was why I was asking Kenimac1 for an alternative.
I think our prison system should be overhauled and I would argue that, applied properly, prisons could be used for far more than just keeping people "off the streets for a wee whilie".
Well, wouldn't it?
Sure, until they come after your nephew for vandalism, or your mother for forgetting to pay for her TV licence. I think you'd have a little more to say about it then.
Do you really feel it is helpful to lock people up, subject them to a criminal culture, then throw them back into the world virtually unemployable?
er, well...yes.
And there is an alternative - don't go to prison, as most people choose to do.
In which case, you appear to be going in circles. You want them to be virtually employable post-sentence, yet seem to think they'll rehabilitate themselves and not commit another crime. How? You can't have it both ways.
I'm suggesting that if we used prisons for more than just locking them up in a cell for 23 hours a day, we may not be faced with such a problem with repeat offenders.
thrumsterloon
03-Mar-05, 22:21
If you can't do the time don't do the crime
My honest opinion? It is true and totally unfair that women are sent to prison more pften and for lesser crimes than men. To be imprisoned for not paying a tv licence is ludicrus! Why not treat them like motorists, and ban them from having a TV? I mean they are hardly a threat to society.
However, for those who are a danger, either by violence or by theft, firstly we have to remove them to protect the innocent - I am one of those old fashioned people who think the victim should come first.
then we must look at the reasons. If the lifestyle is caused by drugs or alcohol, prison is no anwer. Take them to somewhere like Romania and make them build an orphanage - give them a purpose in life. Don't let them home until they have been clean for at least a year, and satisfy a parol board that they seriously want to change.
If they are just plain evil, and i believe some people are, then lock them up and throw away the key.
As for peadophiles, what's wrong with castration?
If you can't do the time don't do the crime
No Tory lapdogs (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=119500&speeches=1), please. :roll:
My honest opinion? It is true and totally unfair that women are sent to prison more pften and for lesser crimes than men. To be imprisoned for not paying a tv licence is ludicrus! Why not treat them like motorists, and ban them from having a TV? I mean they are hardly a threat to society.
I absolutely agree.
If the lifestyle is caused by drugs or alcohol, prison is no anwer. Take them to somewhere like Romania and make them build an orphanage - give them a purpose in life. Don't let them home until they have been clean for at least a year, and satisfy a parol board that they seriously want to change.
I like this idea a lot, though I’m not too sure how keen Romania would be to temporarily house our criminals. I’d argue that community service orders can do this job far more cheaply for the taxpayer, but lots of people dismiss that as overly soft.
If they are just plain evil, and i believe some people are, then lock them up and throw away the key.
This is done with many (like Peter Sutcliffe) but we must acknowledge that it’s a very expensive option which, if applied widely, would mean we’d have to pay far more tax.
As for peadophiles, what's wrong with castration?
If you mean physical castration, I honestly don’t believe this country would be allowed to implement such a measure. Chemical castration is used in many countries around the world. This can only have a physical effect, and doesn’t reduce their urges to abuse. They can still abuse children. There is a risk that, by using a medical treatment, and treating paedophilia as a medical issue, paedophiles may feel that they are less responsible for their actions, and children would actually be at more risk of abuse.
We could, in theory, lock up all paedophiles long term. Again, this would be a very expensive option which we’d need to be prepared to pay for. I don’t believe we’re anywhere close to finding a suitable way of dealing with paedophiles.
Goodness me
We seem to be agreeing quite a bit on some of these issues is it getting to be a habit?
I too liked katarinas idea about the romanian orphanage programme but think there are maybe ways of applying the same things closer to home. I think that Community service HAS to be the way forward although i am not sure how to make it more effective. Instilling a sense of social responsibilty into disaffected youngsters particularly has to be a way of beginning to tackle some of the issues which lead to offending.
The way the justice system treats women and young black men is very worrying and this needs to be a focus for any examination of the system. The drug problem in prisons is another area where there need to be huge improvements.
Drutt observation that prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been in care as a child is one of the most worrying issues. What is it about our care system that produces such a high incidence of offending. When you also realise that 60% of 16 and 17 year old leave care with no qualifications, you have to ask do we reap what we sow? If we are failing the most vulnerable people in our society - children whose parents are unable or unwilling to look after them then why are we surprised there is such a high incidnece of offending amongst this group. Understanding and tackling these issues may very well be as good a place to start.
I know I know doreenhedgehog - leftie pc cronie - yippeeeeeeeeeeeee!
The vote issue is an interesting one. Currently i would be surprised if many prisoners feel that they are seriously deprived by not being able to vote and maybe that is indicative of how much importance the population at large gives to its duty to vote. Maybe there should be a point at which you have your vote - something serious enough to have you jailed for more than however many years should lead to you losing your right to vote.
I hed till look up the word libertarianism in the dictionary tonight. :confused
Heres what it said...an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only a minmal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
I can agree with that for a moment or two until I begin to think about it. I believe I already live in a state where the norm is minimal intervention by the state as long as we toe the line. In most societies toeing the line is determined by the laws of the land.
Sure Drutt the system stinks and it needs a massive enlightenment by government and citizens before any of the questions you and jjc ask, or at least hint at, will begin to be met.
If we end up in the nick for anti social behaviour, depending on the crime, itll give us a chance to think about what we did and the effect it had on other
The prison service would need to be geared to rehabilitation and growth rather than punishment and revenge. That wouldnt happen without massive state intervention.
As is also highlighted on this thread, extreme views wid need to be softened before any enlightenment in dealing with crime could come to seed.
It doesnt matter one little iota if prosoners are allowed to vote or not, what really matters is..........whatr they voting for? :eek:
I don't really know what the full answer is but a lot more thought should be given to sentencing. If someone can provide financial or social retribution outwith prison and they are not a danger to others then they should do so. But for serial offenders who pose a danger to others then prison should be a harse experience and provide a real deterrent.
"]If the lifestyle is caused by drugs or alcohol, prison is no anwer. Take them to somewhere like Romania and make them build an orphanage - give them a purpose in life. Don't let them home until they have been clean for at least a year, and satisfy a parol board that they seriously want to change.
I like this idea a lot, though I’m not too sure how keen Romania would be to temporarily house our criminals. I’d argue that community service orders can do this job far more cheaply for the taxpayer, but lots of people dismiss that as overly soft.
[
Well, I do mean have them well supervised and kept in secure conditions, not allowed to run loose in Romania - they have enough problems without dealing with our criminals. I also think there may be many areas in Britain that could do with some hard labour! Prison does no good, and instead of spending thousands keeping someone incarcerated, why not use their skills, even if it's just labouring.
"]If they are just plain evil, and i believe some people are, then lock them up and throw away the key.
This is done with many (like Peter Sutcliffe) but we must acknowledge that it’s a very expensive option which, if applied widely, would mean we’d have to pay far more tax.
I believe Peter Sutcliff is mentally ill, but that's another issue. However if we put the petty criminals to work, the tax saved could then be applied to long term prisoners.
And I am not against the death penalty for serial killers.
As for peadophiles, what's wrong with castration?
If you mean physical castration, I honestly don’t believe this country would be allowed to implement such a measure. Chemical castration is used in many countries around the world. This can only have a physical effect, and doesn’t reduce their urges to abuse. They can still abuse children. There is a risk that, by using a medical treatment, and treating paedophilia as a medical issue, paedophiles may feel that they are less responsible for their actions, and children would actually be at more risk of abuse.
I agree that (as far as I am led to believe) abuse is often a desire to dominate as opposed to a sexual urge, and in these cases castration is not the answer. But in cases where it is simply an orientation, surely removing the sexual urge would remove the danger? And I am sure this country would not allow physical castration, mores the pity!
I also believe it is an orientation in a lot of cases, therefore there is no treatment that can change them any more than being gay or straight can be altered.
Right now i feel there is not enough being done to protect our children.
[/quote]
[
[Drutt observation that prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been in care as a child is one of the most worrying issues. What is it about our care system that produces such a high incidence of offending. When you also realise that 60% of 16 and 17 year old leave care with no qualifications, you have to ask do we reap what we sow? If we are failing the most vulnerable people in our society - children whose parents are unable or unwilling to look after them then why are we surprised there is such a high incidnece of offending amongst this group. Understanding and tackling these issues may very well be as good a place to start.[quote]
I totally agree. I could really get on my soap box about this one!
I'm suggesting that if we used prisons for more than just locking them up in a cell for 23 hours a day
Well perhaps if thats what actually happened in prison it might be more effective. Instead we see people with only their freedom denied, but they can sit and play PS2s all day, pool anyone?
Personally I think prison sentences should be halved, but all prisoners should be kept in solitary confinement for the duration. Also no parole under any circumstances. I also think that at the end of a sentence they should go into a rehab centre to get them readjusted to everyday life. Punishment and rehab should be separate, so that a clear distinction between the two can be seen.
I still think they should have to do some kind of work paid enough to pay for their keep. After all it's their own fault they are in there, why should the tax payer support them? Plus if they were working they would have less time to sit around doing drugs to kill the boredom. I'd have them so tired they would be glad to fall asleep every night!
And as for being able to sue the government because they have to slop out - that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! If they had to serve a sentence in another country, they might appreciate how well off they are!
Truth is, our system doesn't work. Criminals have to be taken off the street, and yes, they should keep rehabilitation seperate from punishment - I agree with that. I'm thinking of the cost. The victim needs support and there is often very little money put into that. It would be great if there was enough money to do both, but failing that I think we should give the victim first priority.
I hed till look up the word libertarianism in the dictionary tonight. :confused
Heres what it said...an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only a minmal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
Not wanting to get into an argument about the definitions of words… but the OED defines a Libertarian as:
One who approves of or advocates liberty.
and ‘liberty’ is defined as:
Exemption or freedom from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control.
Given those definitions I am truly astounded at the number of times the label ‘Libertarian’ is used as an insult… I mean, is there anybody here who is for unaccountable and overbearing government?
Anyway, I digress…
It seems that we all pretty-much agree that the prison system at the moment is in need of a little (or a lot) of reform. Whether that reform comes in the form of harsher punishment or better preparation for life outside of prison boils down to what we personally believe a prison should be for (rehabilitation, retribution or both).
Personally, I go for both but would like to see the kind of system that Drutt described where prisoners aren’t shipped hundreds of miles from their families and aren’t prevented from working (for themselves). The ‘punishment’ in the system should be that they lose their freedom, not their life.
Of course there are exceptions such as have been mentioned (i.e. Peter Sutcliffe or Ian Huntley) but they are the exceptions and not the rule and should be treated as such.
And Gleeber, I see what you’re saying about the important thing with giving prisoners the vote being what (or who) they would vote for… but you can’t take away somebody’s right to vote because you disagree with the way they choose to use it. That’s a very slippery slope indeed.
What is the point of giving prisoners the right to vote. They are in jail because they have done something wrong. They have everything they require and a lot more than some of the pensioners who fought in the wars to give us a free country and the right to vote. For a prisoner to get the right to vote is utter nonsense. Most pensioners have to scrimp and save to pay their way and these people who are in jail have nothing to worry about.
No community tax to pay, No rent/morgage to pay, No heating to pay, No food to buy.
I cannont agree with anyone wanting to give prisoners a vote. The country has already gone mad by paying compensation to the prisoners who have to slop out. TAX PAYERS AND LAW ABIDDING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRYS MONEY I MAY ADD.
[/u]
What is the point of giving prisoners the right to vote.
That's no argument... once you start having to justify giving people the vote there are quite a few who could be denied their democratic voice:
Don't know what each party stands for? What's the point of having a vote?
Didn't bother voting at the last election? What's the point of having a vote?
Aren't really interested in politics? What's the point of having a vote?
Have always cast your vote for an unelectable party? What's the point of having a vote?
The question shouldn't be why give it to them; the question should be why take it away.
What do you think denying prisoners the right to vote accomplishes?
What do you think denying prisoners the right to vote accomplishes?
To me the arguement is simple, they have had their liberty taken away so they do not take part in society therefore they should not have a right to vote.
Similiarly, Russians do not take part in British society so they are not allowed to vote. If they were resident in this country then that is another discussion.
Drut i totaly disagree with your do gooder attitude why should prisoners get education and retraining in prison for free when other people have to take out loans to fund there education and take years paying of there loans.
They dont need to build more prison they just need to utilise the space they have got get more bunk beds thats the whole idea of prison it should be degrading place to be and should have no rights because they are removed from society and for long term prisoners that commit murder they should be hanged thats another good way of freeing up space.
Prison should be degrading horible place to be not a place were you can go in and retrain for a carreer change and get your food and accomadation and training for free
Drut i totaly disagree with your do gooder attitude why should prisoners get education and retraining in prison for free when other people have to take out loans to fund there education and take years paying of there loans.
We’re not talking about them being trained as doctors or accountants, for goodness sake. We’re talking about basic literacy, numeracy and computer skills. These are basic skills the government is trying to encourage everyone to have, to help this country have the skillset to make it comparable and competitive with other countries. Or have you just missed the DfES (http://www.dfes.gov.uk/get-on/gremlin.shtml) and learndirect (http://www.learndirect.co.uk/) advertising?
With these basic skills, they’ll have a better chance of finding a job, paying taxes, and contributing to society in the future, instead of claiming benefits and being a drain on society in the long term. Is there any particular reason why you have a sadistic desire to keep them down?
They dont need to build more prison they just need to utilise the space they have got get more bunk beds thats the whole idea of prison it should be degrading place to be and should have no rights because they are removed from society and for long term prisoners that commit murder they should be hanged thats another good way of freeing up space.
Prison should be degrading horible place to be not a place were you can go in and retrain for a carreer change and get your food and accomadation and training for free
I can see it makes you feel good to think that prisons should be degrading and breach basic human rights. On the other hand, I don’t see any benefit in permanently labelling people as criminal and unworthy, or in disenfranchising them from society.
This is not based on some ‘woolly’ notion of being soft on everyone, whatever you might think. I genuinely believe that short term investments in people can have long term benefits for society. It makes far more sense to rehabilitate people than spend tens of thousands per year, for decades, housing them in prisons and paying income support to their families, for every single family. That’s a very expensive way of making us non-criminals feel superior, don’t you think?
Drut imagine going up to a prisoner which has committed murder and offering that person basic literacy,numeracy and computer skills in return that the person doesnt re offend some how cant see it working
And as for making prisons a degrading place to live in yes not to make me feel better,maybay a victim to feel better but certanily to make the prisoner hate it and to hopefully put that person off re offending again
But I will say one thing if i did have a say in what went on in prisons i would try your aproach on one prison for a long period of time to see if it had a good success rate to prove the point one way or another.
Drut imagine going up to a prisoner which has committed murder and offering that person basic literacy,numeracy and computer skills in return that the person doesnt re offend some how cant see it working
Most prisoners aren’t murderers. “82% of all sentenced prisoners are sentenced to less than 6 months and are released after serving half that period (http://www.sacro.org.uk/research/coulsfieldinquiry.pdf)”.
Prisoners are literally a captive audience. Why not use that time productively and proactively, instead of letting them rot. What do we expect that to achieve?
And as for making prisons a degrading place to live in yes not to make me feel better,maybay a victim to feel better but certanily to make the prisoner hate it and to hopefully put that person off re offending again
You believe that subjecting people to degrading experiences will make them hate prisons. I believe that it makes them hate the society and the system which subjected them to that degradation – and that that hardly helps to encourage them to becoming law-abiding, fully functioning members of society upon leaving prison.
Seriously, most people are imprisoned for minor offences, and then they are back out a short time afterwards. Sure, they should be punished, and that’s what we use prisons for. If we believe in the notion of rehabilitation, we do our best to ensure this is their only experience of prison, and that they will get jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us for the rest of their workable lives.
Why is it that instead we do our level best to ensure that they recommit crimes, even become career criminals, seeing as this will cost us a fortune in taxes, paying for both their imprisonment and the support of their families? What are we achieving?
I still stand by what I said. Where is the justice in giving prisoners a vote? This country has gone mad giving too many rights to prisoners, these men/women have wronged society so therefore they should have no say in how or who runs our country.
By their crimes they have circumvented the democratic process, so why should they be allowed to play any part in it?
The emphasis should be on 'Prisoner Suffering' rather than 'Prisoner Sufferage'.
Sorry I couldn't resist that one. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.