News2 mins ago
Votes for convicts
16 Answers
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/94100 /Europe-says-Give-vote-to-convicts
Would this mean more votes for Labour?
Would this mean more votes for Labour?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If there are more people voting, then it means more votes for Labour, more votes for the Conservatives and more votes for the LibDems.
If you are implying that Labour voters are more likely to commit crimes, I would be interested in any evidence you have which may support that ntion.
As this is a EU idea, I don't think you can accuse the Government of being in favour of it for electorial gain.
If you are implying that Labour voters are more likely to commit crimes, I would be interested in any evidence you have which may support that ntion.
As this is a EU idea, I don't think you can accuse the Government of being in favour of it for electorial gain.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Without wanting to get into an exchange of statistics, the argument that Labour are soft on Criminals can by countered by the facts that:
The UK imprisons far more people than anywhere else in western Europe.
The Prison population has more than doubled under Labour.
25,000 extra prison places have been created since Labour came to power.
The UK imprisons far more people than anywhere else in western Europe.
The Prison population has more than doubled under Labour.
25,000 extra prison places have been created since Labour came to power.
The idea, I understood, of a custodial sentence was that the miscreant was taken out of the society against whom he had offended for a period determined by the courts (or, more usually these days, until the Home Office decides to release him early). Part of his abstraction from society should therefore surely be that he is not afforded any of that society�s rights or privileges.
This latest move is part of the ongoing process of �decriminalising� criminals. The deal between the public and the state is that individuals do not exact their own punishment from those who have offended against them. Instead the state imposes such penalties as decided by Parliament and the courts. One side of this deal is being seriously eroded by an interfering executive that seems to be ever more siding against victims. It cannot come as a surprise if the other side begins to be similarly ignored and people start taking the law into their own hands.
Although the proposal being studied by the government only relates to prisoners serving four years or less, the case which started all this involved a prisoner serving 25 years. So rest assured that once introduced for those on lower tariffs it will be a short step before those serving so-called life sentences will bring an action which will almost certainly be ruled in their favour.
If anybody can explain to me why the likes of, say, Ian Huntley, Harry Roberts or Ronnie Biggs, should have a say in the election of the government of this country I�d be willing to listen. Don�t just say �it�s their human rights, innit?� (As one ex-con tried to argue this morning on Radio 4). Because something is ruled as a �Human Right� by a European court, it does not automatically become just and fair.
This latest move is part of the ongoing process of �decriminalising� criminals. The deal between the public and the state is that individuals do not exact their own punishment from those who have offended against them. Instead the state imposes such penalties as decided by Parliament and the courts. One side of this deal is being seriously eroded by an interfering executive that seems to be ever more siding against victims. It cannot come as a surprise if the other side begins to be similarly ignored and people start taking the law into their own hands.
Although the proposal being studied by the government only relates to prisoners serving four years or less, the case which started all this involved a prisoner serving 25 years. So rest assured that once introduced for those on lower tariffs it will be a short step before those serving so-called life sentences will bring an action which will almost certainly be ruled in their favour.
If anybody can explain to me why the likes of, say, Ian Huntley, Harry Roberts or Ronnie Biggs, should have a say in the election of the government of this country I�d be willing to listen. Don�t just say �it�s their human rights, innit?� (As one ex-con tried to argue this morning on Radio 4). Because something is ruled as a �Human Right� by a European court, it does not automatically become just and fair.
I don't believe prisoners should get the vote. Voting isn't just a right, it should be deemed a privilege and such a privilege should be denied to people who have been incarcerated because they cannot abide by the standards society deems as normal. It wouldn't surprise me if prison voting resulted in an even lower turnout than usual. I wonder what their excuses for not voting would be. Any suggestions?
As an aside, Gromit (and since you raised it) the reason the UK has a higher prison population than similar countries elsewhere is, quite simply, because it has more criminals.
The UK has, in fact, a fairly low rate of imprisonment (prison sentences per crime committed) but one of the highest levels of imprisonment (as a percentage of the population). One of the main reasons for this is that we have the top rate of violence and theft offences in the developed world (though, occasionally second to Australia).
For example, Spain has about half the level (per head) of this type of crime than us and fewer prisoners, but a much higher rate of imprisonment, with almost all violence and theft offences leading to custody.
The fact that the prison population has doubled in recent years is testament to the fact that more crimes are being committed (or at least, prosecuted), not that sentences are harsher. On the contrary, since 2003, a large number of less serious offences which previously attracted custody as a �starting point� have been downgraded to a community-based penalty.
To take the trivial offence of domestic burglary as an example, before 2003 magistrates were urged to send all those convicted of the offence to Crown Court, where the judges� guidelines for a first time offender was 12-18 months. Now magistrates� guidelines suggest a custodial sentence should not be considered unless there are serious aggravating features present. Victims of daytime domestic burglaries where the goods taken are of low value can therefore now expect the perpetrator to serve his sentence "in the community", whereas six years ago he had a very good chance of going to prison.
As you say, best not to get involved in a protracted discussion about crime and sentencing statistics.
The UK has, in fact, a fairly low rate of imprisonment (prison sentences per crime committed) but one of the highest levels of imprisonment (as a percentage of the population). One of the main reasons for this is that we have the top rate of violence and theft offences in the developed world (though, occasionally second to Australia).
For example, Spain has about half the level (per head) of this type of crime than us and fewer prisoners, but a much higher rate of imprisonment, with almost all violence and theft offences leading to custody.
The fact that the prison population has doubled in recent years is testament to the fact that more crimes are being committed (or at least, prosecuted), not that sentences are harsher. On the contrary, since 2003, a large number of less serious offences which previously attracted custody as a �starting point� have been downgraded to a community-based penalty.
To take the trivial offence of domestic burglary as an example, before 2003 magistrates were urged to send all those convicted of the offence to Crown Court, where the judges� guidelines for a first time offender was 12-18 months. Now magistrates� guidelines suggest a custodial sentence should not be considered unless there are serious aggravating features present. Victims of daytime domestic burglaries where the goods taken are of low value can therefore now expect the perpetrator to serve his sentence "in the community", whereas six years ago he had a very good chance of going to prison.
As you say, best not to get involved in a protracted discussion about crime and sentencing statistics.
Ex-Servicemen 11%
Asian 3%
Black British 12%
Chinese etc 2%
nice graph here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 405/cmselect/cmhaff/193/19317.htm
Asian 3%
Black British 12%
Chinese etc 2%
nice graph here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 405/cmselect/cmhaff/193/19317.htm
Thanks for that gromit, the following makes for interesting reading.
I wonder if sp1814 wishes to comment?
At 58 per cent, black prisoners account for the largest number of minority ethnic prisoners and their numbers are rising - whereas the prison population grew by just over 12 per cent between 1999 and 2002, the number of black prisoners increased by 51 per cent.
I wonder if sp1814 wishes to comment?
At 58 per cent, black prisoners account for the largest number of minority ethnic prisoners and their numbers are rising - whereas the prison population grew by just over 12 per cent between 1999 and 2002, the number of black prisoners increased by 51 per cent.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Perhaps The Prince Should Sort Them Out.
News4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.