This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
karinaal · 70-79, F
In my opinion (convicted) prisoners have been sentenced to spending time in prison.
They have not been sentenced to during the time in prison being treated badly, being deprived of rights and made to suffer as much as possible.
They have not been sentenced to during the time in prison being treated badly, being deprived of rights and made to suffer as much as possible.
1961dave · 61-69, M
Not alliwing them to vote is not making them suffer. They violate other peoples rights with crimes. They've proven they have bad judgement, they certainly should not have the right to vote!
karinaal · 70-79, F
@1961dave: Suffering could be defined as being deprived of rights that citizens in general have.
You also should take into consideration that not all prisoners are criminals, some have offended against for instance the Road Traffic Act (or whatever you call it in your country) and some have inadvertently committed the violation they are sentenced for.
But you are right that it could very well be part of a jail sentence that the vote and other civil rights are denied. I do not really see the point in this unless it is for security reasons but if it is done as additional punishment this should be made clear in the law's definition of imprisonment.
At least here and in neighbouring countries it is normal that people who only receive short prison sentences are not imprisoned immediately after the conviction. Then you have the problem of deciding if the vote should be denied until the prison time is served although this means that it could be for a considerably longer time than than the offender is sentenced to serve in prison.
It also is a fact that in America it has several times happened that prisoners have been released before time because the prisons were overpopulated and then you would have to decide if and when the released prisoners should also have the vote back.
Finally it goes against all normally observed rules in civilised society to take away a person's vote because this person in a single situation, that has nothing to do with politics, shows poor judgement. Considering how many people in most European countries and also in America at times violates the law by possessing and smoking cannabis I think it is safe to say that if we use wilful violation of law as proof of poor judgement that should result in the suspension of the right to vote, then there would be very few voters left.
You also should take into consideration that not all prisoners are criminals, some have offended against for instance the Road Traffic Act (or whatever you call it in your country) and some have inadvertently committed the violation they are sentenced for.
But you are right that it could very well be part of a jail sentence that the vote and other civil rights are denied. I do not really see the point in this unless it is for security reasons but if it is done as additional punishment this should be made clear in the law's definition of imprisonment.
At least here and in neighbouring countries it is normal that people who only receive short prison sentences are not imprisoned immediately after the conviction. Then you have the problem of deciding if the vote should be denied until the prison time is served although this means that it could be for a considerably longer time than than the offender is sentenced to serve in prison.
It also is a fact that in America it has several times happened that prisoners have been released before time because the prisons were overpopulated and then you would have to decide if and when the released prisoners should also have the vote back.
Finally it goes against all normally observed rules in civilised society to take away a person's vote because this person in a single situation, that has nothing to do with politics, shows poor judgement. Considering how many people in most European countries and also in America at times violates the law by possessing and smoking cannabis I think it is safe to say that if we use wilful violation of law as proof of poor judgement that should result in the suspension of the right to vote, then there would be very few voters left.