Prisoners Voting

[Cherry Poppin' Daddy]

So, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2002 that the gov't couldn't take away convicted criminals' right to vote. Just wondering what other people think of this. From media reports, it seems that many have voted Liberal, to keep the Conservatives and their tough on crime agenda out of power. Personally, I'm not sure if they should be voting... criminals have been removed from society for a period of time (or their entire lives) for violating Canadian laws. Should we really give them a voice in electing those who will influence the law-making process? I'm not really so sure.

[no yu begin wher i end]

From media reports, it seems that many have voted Liberal,

I'm sure there's a joke to be made in there somewhere. ;)

[borntohula]

So, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2002 that the gov't couldn't take away convicted criminals' right to vote. Just wondering what other people think of this. From media reports, it seems that many have voted Liberal, to keep the Conservatives and their tough on crime agenda out of power. Personally, I'm not sure if they should be voting... criminals have been removed from society for a period of time (or their entire lives) for violating Canadian laws. Should we really give them a voice in electing those who will influence the law-making process? I'm not really so sure.

i think you're missing the point of what a institution like that is supposed to accomplish. prisons arent meant to remove people from society and then dump them back in when their time is up. what do these individuals learn from that? they're supposed to be rehabilitated within that time frame. unfortunately, not all institutions abide by that cause, but i believe that giving them their right to vote ensures that they have a choice in their future, because most of them aren't going to be incarcerated forever.

[garsk]

no, i dont think that a person serving 25 to live and went into prison during the last conservative government, are not going to be looking out for the best of the country. if someone is not really a part of the public society, in which i mean living in a cell, and going out for fresh air once a day, more then likely doesnt really care if the government goes to iraq, or sings enviromental bills, cause in the end how is it going to affect his cell? but on the other hand, for a shorter sentence, say, less the 5 years. Sure, they will be out by the time the next election is called. so they will know how the governing party is doing.

[borntohula]

no, i dont think that a person serving 25 to live and went into prison during the last conservative government, are not going to be looking out for the best of the country.

why does it matter if they went to prison during a conservative government or a liberal one?

 

regardless of your sentence, who gets voted in ultimately affects the lifestyle of inmates, even though their existence is reduced to a small room. one party would be for privatizing prisons, whereas other parties do not share the same ideas toward corrections. these sorts of decisions have huge effects on the rehabilitative capabilities of the institutions, the inmates themselves, as well as their overall success rate.

[Moonlight_Graham]

prisoners shouldn't be voting. They should have given up that right when they violated the law, just as they gave up the rights to other freedoms.

 

All allowing prisoners to vote will do is put more votes towards a party that is more lax on crime. And really, do we actually want the worst scum of society having a say on things that affects our lives?

[josiegross]

this is how i see it: if you don't have enough respect for the governance of the country to follow the laws of said country, you thereby forfeit your right to excersize the freedoms that country and government protect. that includes voting.

 

yes, prisoners have rights, but they have a whole other set of rights, and a whole other set of rules because of the choices that they've made.

[saturnine]

So, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2002 that the gov't couldn't take away convicted criminals' right to vote. Just wondering what other people think of this. From media reports, it seems that many have voted Liberal, to keep the Conservatives and their tough on crime agenda out of power. Personally, I'm not sure if they should be voting... criminals have been removed from society for a period of time (or their entire lives) for violating Canadian laws. Should we really give them a voice in electing those who will influence the law-making process? I'm not really so sure.

there are criminals in society who are allowed to vote, the only difference is that they have yet to be caught... or they run political parties.

[borntohula]

this is how i see it: if you don't have enough respect for the governance of the country to follow the laws of said country, you thereby forfeit your right to excersize the freedoms that country and government protect. that includes voting.

 

yes, prisoners have rights, but they have a whole other set of rights, and a whole other set of rules because of the choices that they've made.

what if those laws are unjust?

 

what if i break a law that is completely unreasonable and infringes upon human rights?

[josiegross]

for example?

[borntohula]

for example?

well im not thinking of canadian laws in specific... it was just a theoretical question meant to show you that it all just relies on one's perspective. just becaue you live in this country doesnt mean that you have to respect its laws.

 

like saturnine pointed out, those with power don't have to face any of the consequences of their abuse of power, and arguably have more of an impact upon votes than the normal middle class gangster such as you or myself.

[josiegross]

for example?

well im not thinking of canadian laws in specific... it was just a theoretical question meant to show you that it all just relies on one's perspective. just becaue you live in this country doesnt mean that you have to respect its laws.

 

like saturnine pointed out, those with power don't have to face any of the consequences of their abuse of power, and arguably have more of an impact upon votes than the normal middle class gangster such as you or myself.

"just because you live in this country doesn't mean you have to respect it's laws"

 

yes. you do.

 

 

on the subject of politicians and other people in positions of power and/or wealth that's a whole other can of worms. they need to be held accountable. they need to face the same consequences as anyone else who pulls what they've pulled (for example, i'm thinking of the "old lady" who bought a condo here in vancouver for 330,000$ or something and then poisoned the trees that were blocking her view, turned around and sold it for something ridiculous like 5x as much as she paid but only suffered a 50,000$ fine and "public humiliation"). but all of that is about law reform, criminal law reform, prison reform, etc etc etc.

 

if someone belonged to a group of people, and the group of people was found to be stealing money in ridiculously large amounts from the general public, never never ever would we allow that person to run for office.

unless of course it was his second term.

 

and if a homeless person was tired and needed a place to set up semi-permanent camp so they chopped down a tree or two in a public area they'd have a semi-permanent camp alright. it's called prison. willful destruction of public property? straight to jail. unless of course you made a bunch of money by getting rid of those trees, in which case you can just slip a cut to the people in charge of enforcing things like that.

 

 

 

 

 

BUT, no. prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote. no one who treats the laws of our country with disrespect should be allowed to vote.

voting is how we effect change in the laws we disagree with, not breaking them.

 

 

EDIT: note that i'm speaking only of canada here, where we live in relative safety and security with a government that may be doing a shit job but is still doing better than most of them. and with a democratic process that seems damned near successful.

Edited January 17, 2006 by josiegross

[borntohula]

what if i disagree with voting? the whole process of only having 4 parties to choose from in my community is no real choice at all. what do i do then? how do i show the government i dislike a certain law?

 

and even if i didnt disagree with voting, the idea that decisions solely get made by voting is the most apathetic thing ive ever heard. things dont change with your vote. as soon as you mark an "x" on that ballot, you officially leave your viewpoints up to a lottery.

 

people who assume that as soon as they vote they've fufilled their right as a citizen witnin a democracy is nuts. people need to get involved with their communities in order to creat and stimulate change.

 

im going on a bit of a tangent here.

 

anyway, my main point here is that sure, people break laws and are sent to institutions. but people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment. once at a facility, i believe its the country's responsibilty to help rehabilitate these individuals and make them functioning members of society once again.

 

the assumption that all inmates are going to somehow band together and vote for some party which is more lax on corrections is ridiculous. even if that happened, give me an example of a prison that has more people inside it than outside in the neighborring city?

 

if you're all for the removal of all their rights, then what about their right to rehabilitation in the first place? that right still exists within an institution. they also have a right to a safe environment, which is meant to be upheld by guards. do you want these rights revoked as well? being in a prison does not mean you suddenly have no rights, thats a bit outrageous. they're human beings as well, and will be eventually released... so i think they should have a say in their future. they also have family and friends that live in this country as well.

 

keep in mind, most of canada's correctional institutions are primarily made up of people who commit property crimes (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal20a.htm?sdi=prison). they aren't all just murderous bastards like the TV might tell you.

[Moonlight_Graham]

if you're all for the removal of all their rights, then what about their right to rehabilitation in the first place? that right still exists within an institution. they also have a right to a safe environment, which is meant to be upheld by guards. do you want these rights revoked as well? being in a prison does not mean you suddenly have no rights, thats a bit outrageous. they're human beings as well, and will be eventually released... so i think they should have a say in their future. they also have family and friends that live in this country as well.

I don't think anyone said anything about the removal of ALL their rights. Since prisoners are in prison, their rights to be free walking are already taken away. I don't see how taking away their right to vote will hurt their rehab process. In fact, if they care at all about their right to vote than maybe it will act as a small deterant for commiting crimes. If a prisoner has most all the rights/freedoms that we do, whats the point of putting them in jail?

 

If somebody polled prisoners who were going to vote, i doubt many would be voting Tories and most would be voting Liberal simply because they fear the Tories would impose stricter sentancing/punishments for criminals. Most don't give a crap about anything else.

 

And if they do have families/friends and care about their futures, maybe they should have though of that before commiting their crime(s). Daddy sure ain't helping his family by being in the slammer.

[Ravenous itchy]

This thread is surprisingly socially conservative for around here.

 

Borntohula: the idea of prison is to rehabilitate people, yes, but it is also a punishment for their crimes, and a deterrent to those who might commit crimes. You have to consider all the functions of imprisonment, not just take the narrow view of rehabilitation. These people have broken the law, and by doing so they have forfeited their rights.

[Moonlight_Graham]

Itchy, well said.

[Dan #2]

this is how i see it: if you don't have enough respect for the governance of the country to follow the laws of said country, you thereby forfeit your right to excersize the freedoms that country and government protect. that includes voting.

 

yes, prisoners have rights, but they have a whole other set of rights, and a whole other set of rules because of the choices that they've made.

I like that.

 

 

 

i don't have a problem with jail prisoners voting, but those in prisons are serious offenders.

 

Personally, i wish we had the death penalty, and this may sound odd coming from a vegan, but someone who does terrible things, (say Paul Bernardo,) and is in prison for life might as well be executed. If no one contests his guilt, why not? Spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on people who need it, like lepors.

[C-Bacon]

Borntohula: the idea of prison is to rehabilitate people, yes, but it is also a punishment for their crimes, and a deterrent to those who might commit crimes.

If the purpose is to rehabilitate, then why is punishment also necessary?

[josiegross]

borntohula: please note that in my post i distinctly said that prisoners DO have rights. just different rights.

 

 

and again we branch into a new topic: voter reform.

[ecnarf]

this is how i see it: if you don't have enough respect for the governance of the country to follow the laws of said country, you thereby forfeit your right to excersize the freedoms that country and government protect. that includes voting.

 

yes, prisoners have rights, but they have a whole other set of rights, and a whole other set of rules because of the choices that they've made.

I like that.

 

 

 

i don't have a problem with jail prisoners voting, but those in prisons are serious offenders.

 

Personally, i wish we had the death penalty, and this may sound odd coming from a vegan, but someone who does terrible things, (say Paul Bernardo,) and is in prison for life might as well be executed. If no one contests his guilt, why not? Spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on people who need it, like lepors.

It actually costs less to imprison a man for life than it does to execute him.

[borntohula]

firstly, removing criminals from society puts them at a disadvantage. just because they committed a crime should not mean that suddenly, these people do not matter. defining them as inhuman is where you start to encounter problems. some sociologists even argue that labelling is the cause of many instances of crime in the first place.

 

essentially what you people are saying is that we live in a democratic society but only some of us are allowed to vote. that's not a democracy, folks.

 

dan, you dont think paul berdardo needs the treatment he's getting? that money would be better off spent somewhere else? just kill him and be done with it? who does that help?

 

its incredibly hypocritical to kill the killer, what does that accomplish? its obviously not acting as a very good deterrant. just look at the united states! where's the justification? why punish people for killing in the first place if the government can play god and do the same thing?

 

how about, instead of killing them, we... i dont know... try to understand their behavior in order to allow for more prevenative methods to be created to stop this behaviour from happening??? that sounds like a decent idea. the death penalty is nonsense.

 

thats enough on paul bernardo... the exception should not dictate the rule. end of story.

 

last year i was fortunate enough to visit both fenbrook (medium security) and beaver creak (minimum) institutions (not as an offender, through university, in my crime and punishment class). beaver creek, despite what you think you know about prisons, is not a prison at all. its several houses and buildings on a plot of land. no gates. anywhere. the inmates are allowed to roam freely, but most have either vocational training, school, or an actual job to attend to during the day. at night, they have a curfew and abide by it. they get paid at the jobs they have and have to buy their own groceries. this way they are encouraged to work with their roomates in order to develop interpersonal skills as well as to be able to budget for the week. they have a lot more freedom than you think. how different are they from you or i?

 

if you're in a minimum security prison, it means that you are going to be a part of society in a very short period of time or are of no danger to the world outside. that's federally. the majority of provincial sentences average somewhere around 60 days!! going to jail for two months suddenly makes someone exempt from their role in a democracy?

 

If somebody polled prisoners who were going to vote, i doubt many would be voting Tories and most would be voting Liberal simply because they fear the Tories would impose stricter sentancing/punishments for criminals. Most don't give a crap about anything else.

 

so what??? thats like saying because students are concerned with tuition, they're going to be more likely to vote for the green party...

 

you vote on what affects you!

 

different issues affect different people.

 

explain how their involvement in the electoral process adversely affects our communities? it's a positive change!!

 

"Offenders should be encouraged to accept more responsibility for their future roles in the community. Voting promotes a sense of belonging and establishes a link between the offender and the community. Giving inmates the right to vote also demonstrates that as a society, we recognize that incarcerated individuals maintain responsibility during incarceration and after their release. Furthermore, voting privileges allow inmates to view themselves as participating members of society and not outcasts from it. After all, people are not sentenced to lack of citizenship." http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/

 

most canadian inmates come from impoverished, minority groups, a life where prison is a reality and they are often led to it. it'd be discrimination to say that these people should not have a voice in the development and changes to be brought about in our counry. like i mentionned earlier, maybe our efforts should be more focussed on crime prevention, which includes fixing poverty stricken areas of the country.

[Ravenous itchy]

I have no issue with crime prevention; I think that it is a very important issue that our governments give far too little attention. This is off the topic though, we are talking about rights of people who already have commited crimes. There needs to be a standard of right and wrong, and those who do wrong need to be told so. As Canadian society moves more socially liberal, right and wrong begin to get muddled up. I won't go into my opinions in other areas, but this relates to the subject at hand in that what you seem to be essentially saying is that people don't choose to commit crimes, therefore crimes aren't wrong therefore there shouldn't be punishment (forgive the generalization). The reality is that people choose to commit crimes. They choose to do something that they know is wrong according to our laws. Just as a sane parent will tell their child "no" if they do something wrong, so must society tell its members "no" when they deviate from our laws.

[josiegross]

nail on the head, itchy. nail on the head.

[borntohula]

alright, generalization forgiven. that's not really what i'm saying though.

 

As Canadian society moves more socially liberal, right and wrong begin to get muddled up.

 

that's a load of garbage and you know it. here's a generalization i can't just gloss over. just because i'm not pushing for capital punishment and torture does not mean that i dont believe in corrections. i understand that people must learn from their mistakes. these mistakes must be pointed out to them and corrected in order to maintain a certain quality of life. i have no qualms about this, nor have i stated otherwise.

 

labelling me liberal is boring rhetoric and has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

also, you seem to neglect actually making any sort of counter arguement against my last post. you're just restating what you've said.

 

so one last time: please, could you explain to me how inmates being involved in the electoral process adversely affects our communities?

 

it strengthens the inmates ties to a world that they would otherwise be considerred outcast. is that what you would prefer? is this the goal of your punitive ideals? remove these wrongdoers from society entirely and leave them to rot in some cell? out of sight out of mind? when does your punishment end and when does the rehabilitation begin?

 

the problem with your idea is that its being performed all over canada. people are thrown in jail and are given nothing to do but gain closer ties to the criminal world. no jobs are offerred, no skills are taught, and no appreciation is learned for the society in which we live. then, when they're let out, they've got nothing to live for. no house, no job, no education. what else do they have to turn to but more crime? no wonder the recidivism rate is on the rise!!!

 

call me a liberal, call me a hippy, but i think these members of society are worth more to us acting positively within our communities. in the institutions i mentionned earlier (fenbrook, beaver creek), where more proactive approaches are being taken, inmates are being taught ways of life, and will be able to successfully meet the demands of the world outside. being removed of their citizenship has no rehabilitative qualities to it whatsoever. nor does it teach them a lesson. it just reinforces the idea that these people do not fit within our society and cannot actively participate within it. they have no voice. as a result, your views only end up worsening the situation, not helping. there is nothing to be learned from that experience.

[ecnarf]

Am I the only one who objects to the idea of government being a parent and its citizen being the child?

 

Law enforcement is different than parenting. Parenting is not only disciplining a child, but raising them and shaping who the person is as a human being. Law enforcement is self-explanatory... it enforces the laws for the safety of a society's citizens.