howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2010
19:1440801the european court ruled some time ago that the UK was being unlawful in not allowing our convicted felons their full voting rights.
our government has resisted going along with this.
it now transpires that prisoners will be suing the government, i.e. us for approx 1000 quid apiece for denying them a basic human right.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
16 February 2010
19:1940803Does this mean that MPs will now be visiting prisons, and having their picture`s taken shaking hands with prisoner`s?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
16 February 2010
20:0040814I can't believe this, it's madness.
B....cks to Human Rights - how can someone who is in prison have human rights (apart from having a fair trial), he/she lost them when they committed the offence.
Those cons. are just playing the system for the money, not the vote.
There's so many stupid things going on in society, but this must take the biscuit.
Roger
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
16 February 2010
20:4840819Roger, after reading the unfortunate plight of your brother which you mentioned on the other post, perhaps he`s better off inside?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2010
20:4940820let us not forget the internet use where they now provoke their victims through socil networking sites.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
16 February 2010
20:5240822I expect that loan shark is doing his online banking in there.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2010
21:2840831like it colin, you're so cynical sometimes.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,698
16 February 2010
22:5940838This frankly is silly, the point of prison is the removal of freedoms that law abiding citizens enjoy, one of which ought to be the right to participate in elections
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
16 February 2010
23:1040841try telling that to the european court of human rights.
i am not a hang them and flog them type, but there must be some boundaries.
i do not like the thought of prisoners locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day doing nothing.
surely they must pay some sort of debt to society with work, the ones that will not change are being punished, the ones that intend to do something with their life might gain a skill(or just a work ethic).
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
17 February 2010
08:2740851I agree Howard, it is pointless leaving them in a cell for so many hours a day; all of them should be given work of some sort, none are beyond training to do something.
Roger
17 February 2010
10:0740857BUT - shoot me now lads! - human rights don't stop because one is a criminal. And it is offensive to lump all criminals together as "they". There are many criminal acts and outcomes, and we are more than the sum of what we have done. Don't misunderstand me, I am a fully paid up member of the Consequences fan club, but I also think we need to keep perspective. Howards proposal is a really good one - sentencing should be so much more than just punishment, there should be some rehabilitation and some recompense to society in the mix too. Sometimes sentencing is an opportunity to start again, and that opportunity should be given. Not only is it good for the criminal, but for society as a whole too - if one person reforms, we all benefit.
17 February 2010
10:1840862Fine sentiments Bern, but where do we draw the line. As I posted elsewhere, over 30% of murderers released back into the community, kill again. So this begs a question particularly relating to serious offenders:
Do we want to rehabilitate offenders at the risk of more victims, or should a life sentence be exactly that for killers?
I don't have a problem giving folks a second chance, but there is a world of difference between a Jeffrey Archer and an Ian Brady type which must be considered.
I also don't have a problem with prison being a tough, but humane, environment. Being sent to prison is a punishment, that doesn't mean the punishment should stop once the sentence is delivered. Rehabilitate and give gainful work to the inmates by all means, in fact I'd welcome the introduction of chain gangs, but don't ever forget the crimes committed or the victims of those crimes.
17 February 2010
10:2840867Totally agree Sid. I would never release paedophiles as the risk of re-offending is too high against the risk to their rights. It is not a risk worth taking. I have to add, though, that punishment and consequence has to stop at some point - once the "time is done" and restoration made it must be time to move on. This does not apply to those at high risk of re-offending though. It is a matter of risks/benefits and the balance, and the potential effect on us as a whole.
17 February 2010
11:4440868Agreed 100% Bern.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
17 February 2010
11:5240870different issue really sid.
we do keep hearing about prisoners being released to a bail hostel, then absconding.
we are then told that they are dangerous.
if they are dangerous, why are they in bail hostels?
just imagine what it would have been like here with an open prison full of murderers and sex offenders being prepared for life outside.
17 February 2010
12:0540873That, Howard, is the question. If someone still poses a threat, do not release them even to hostels and open prisons. Simples.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 February 2010
00:5940938An inmate serving a custodial sentence should have the right to vote. Losing their freedom,not being able to see their families,wives ,children on a daily basis and being herded like cattle from one block to another is bad enough so giving them the right to vote over who could maybe have the power to decide how long they are locked up for is the very least that society can do to try rehabilatate and intergrate them back into society.
Talk about kicking a dog when its down... sometimes there is very little that separates a 'normal' society from its offenders.Lets talk about compassion,forgivenesss and rehabilatation coupled with re-training,education and better opportunities for all and not just the priviledge few.Treat them like like animals and what do you expect in return?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
18 February 2010
01:5640943What about the victims Marek? Would they agree with you? Welcome back mate.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
18 February 2010
07:5940945They are seperate issues, Colin. Treating people in prison like human beings does not imply lack of empathy with victims. And there are plenty of "victims" on the "other" side of the wall too. The reason the law HAS to be seperate from victims is that victims will, rightly, be biased. Law has to be independent. If someone hurt someone I care about I would want to kneecap them slowly and them twist a knife in their hearts - that doesn't mean it would be the right thing to do! The law protects victims from having to deal with that kind of stuff, and that is right.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
18 February 2010
08:4540952I couldn't disagree with you any more than I do on this one Marek. Absolutely never give them the right to vote; they lost that right, when they committed the crime.
Roger
