Lib Dems 'want violence register'

ComradeDavo

Formerly God
Joined
Jul 1, 2001
Messages
12,243
Location
Europa
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5017650.stm
Lib Dems 'want violence register'

Sir Menzies's speech will signal a major change in Lib Dem policy


Sir Menzies interview
Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has called for a "violent crimes" register and an end to the automatic release of prisoners halfway through sentences.
In a speech, he also said people in jail for serious crimes should continue to be denied the right to vote - a reversal of the party's past policy.

And he argued that foreign criminals must serve sentences in their home country or be deported on release.

He is trying to counter Labour and Tory claims his party is too soft on crime.

"A party which is serious about social justice cannot fail to be serious about preventing crime and enforcing the rules," he said.

Shift in policy

Sir Menzies is using a series of major policy speeches to outline the direction in which he wants to take the party.

Speaking to Lib Dem councillors in London, he signalled a sharp shift in approach to law and order from that of Charles Kennedy, who resigned in January.

He is setting up two policy groups to look at new ways for tackling crime.

A senior party aide admitted that, under Mr Kennedy, there had been "ambiguities" in the Lib Dems' handling of crime that had contributed to a public perception of the party as soft.

Sir Menzies told BBC News he did not think his party was "wishy washy" on law and order but said Tony Blair had tried to create that perception.

Without criticising Mr Kennedy directly, Sir Menzies made clear he thought the former leader was wrong when he said during last year's election campaign that child murderer Ian Huntley should have the vote.

People who had committed crimes like murder, rape or manslaughter should forfeit all rights to vote, he argued.

"If you break the law to that extent you should not be allowed to vote for those who make the law," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Aides said Sir Menzies was not abandoning official party policy that some inmates should be granted the vote.

Government 'mismanagement'

Sir Menzies responded to the recent string of serious crimes - including the murders of banker John Monckton and teenager Mary-Ann Leneghan - committed by convicts on parole.

He called for the establishment of a violent offenders register to help police and other law-enforcement agencies keep track of dangerous people.

And he urged an end to automatic release for prisoners who have served half of their sentence, insisting that parole boards must be given discretion on when an inmate should go free.



Sir Menzies said the plans should cut, not push up, prisoner numbers by making new efforts to rehabilitate prisoners.

"Prison should be for those who have to be kept there but it should be used as it were as a dumping ground," he said.

"For too many people are in prison who do not get in prison the sort of retraining and rehabilitation which would enable them to lead useful lives outside."

Sir Menzies attacked Home Office mismanagement amid continuing controversy over the foreign prisoners freed without being considered for deportation.

He will say that "undesirable" criminals from abroad should be transferred to serve their sentences in their home country or deported as soon as their sentence ends.

"If they cannot be deported due to threats to their life, we need to introduce new measures to restrict their freedom of movement and association," he will say.

"Where a dangerous individual cannot be deported due to threats to their life, we should look at legislation to impose restrictions on their residence in the UK."

SIR MENZIES' PLANS
New register for violent offenders
Serious prisoners should continue to be denied the right to vote
Released foreign prisioners should face movement restrictions if they cannot be deported
End to automatic early releases
Sounds all good to me. Any comments?

I'm glad about what he's said regarding serious offenders right to vote.
 
Taking away the right to vote for felons is a bad, bad, bad idea, IMO.
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Taking away the right to vote for felons is a bad, bad, bad idea, IMO.
Personally when someone kills or rapes a child I think NOT taking away their right to vote is a very bad idea.

We are talking about 'serious' criminals, not petty thieves or whatnot.
 
Does not seem right to me to remove the right to vote from felons who are truely repentant and sorry for what they did.
 
That is right-wing bollocks and is NOT the liberal way. This is NOT why i joined the party. This, in particular, is scandalous:

In a speech, he also said people in jail for serious crimes should continue to be denied the right to vote - a reversal of the party's past policy.

If that is not retracted VERY SOON I am leaving the party.

Moderator Action: Profanity removed. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
CivGeneral said:
Does not seem right to me to remove the right to vote from felons who are truely repentant and sorry for what they did.
So if a serial killer is sorry, he should still get a vote?:crazyeye:
 
zulu9812 said:
That is right-wing bollocks and is NOT the liberal way. Ming can **** off. This is NOT why i joined the party. This, in particular, is scandalous:

If that is not retracted VERY ****ING SOON I am leaving the party.
Come off it Zulu, if someone slaughtered your family and friends do you really think thay should be allowed to vote?
 
ComradeDavo said:
So if Tony Balir said sorry about the Iraq war, do you think the war should be forgiven?

I don't think that he should be denied the vote
 
zulu9812 said:
I don't think that he should be denied the vote
Thats not the question.

As far as i'm concerned, when you take/ruin another human beings life you forfit your rights, which include the right to vote.
 
Whilst I agree that prisoners should not be automatically released half-way through sentences, a 'violence register' is abhorrent. Once someone has served their time - repaid their debt to society - there should be no more debt to society. They should be free to live their life. Too often, the stigma of crime means that ex-cons are unable to find work and so fall back into a life of crime. I see no good reason to increase that risk. Violence is NOT the same as paedophilia, for Christ's sake.

However, that can be worked on. A compromise can be reached, I am sure. But there is something that I am NOT prepared to compromise on. Denying ex-cons the vote? Is he serious? Have we suddenly become the United States? I can't say that I am terribly happy with current prisoners being denied the right to vote. Again, it comes back to the issue of serving your sentence and repaying your debt to society. A criminal should not be labelled a criminal for life. As a liberal, I believe that people can change and that they should be given the opportunity to do so. As a Liberal Democrat party member, I am appalled at this sudden lurch to the right. I draw your attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Article 6 states "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.". Article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

I could continue to quote that charter, and the European Charter on Human Rights, but I think that I have communicated my point. The right to vote is just that: a right. When we start denying people the vote, we head down a dangerous path: the road down is a lot easier than the road back up. This goes against everything that we stand for. Let me make this very clear: I cannot remain a member of a party that seeks to deny the vote to any of its citizens. This is something that I, in good conscience, cannot accept. Liberals are supposed to look at the causes of crime, not treat criminals (who are mostly of lower income backgrounds) as second class citizens, shut them up and pretend that crime will no longer be a problem because of it.
 
Zulu, I think you are majorly over-reacting. Not wanting serious criminals to vote is hardly a 'lurch to the right'.

Lets go over it again....
People who had committed crimes like murder, rape or manslaughter should forfeit all rights to vote, he argued.

"If you break the law to that extent you should not be allowed to vote for those who make the law," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Aides said Sir Menzies was not abandoning official party policy that some inmates should be granted the vote.
And fair enough I say.

You know damn well that he's saying this because of the right-wing media trying to brand the Liberals 'soft' on crime BECAUSE of their policies on tackling the cause of it and their belief in rehab.
 
Davo, you have an infinite amount more knowledge of British political parties than I ever could muster. In your honest opinion, do you think the party is trying to pick up votes by being more conservative on law and order issues?
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Taking away the right to vote for felons is a bad, bad, bad idea, IMO.

Please explain to me why it is a good idea to allow felons to vote? I think removing your civil right to vote is perfectly acceptable part of punishment for a felony as the crime is against society at large.
 
Why not just make all arrest records and court papers open to the public?
 
Heh, CD. It's quite funny watching you swallow this one wholesale when you'd reject it out of hand if it came from either of the other two parties. Zulu's right - this is a non-liberal stance which is coming out, not from core beliefs, but from political expediency. As you admit, it's being done just to address the popular view (not just a media one, btw) of the LibDems being soft on crime. The phrase "LibDem fanboy" jumps to mind.... ;)

If Ming is prepared to go this much against the core ethos of liberalism to just stay in contention, what do you reckon he'll be like if he ever had to deal with the hard, frustrating real world of government where compromises and pragmatism are constantly required ?
 
skadistic said:
Why not just make all arrest records and court papers open to the public?
Because arrestations, accusations and convictions are three different things. People who were just arrested or accused but were never convicted don't deserve this.
 
zulu9812 said:
Too often, the stigma of crime means that ex-cons are unable to find work and so fall back into a life of crime.

If you cant deal with the ramifications of commiting crime, ie the stigma of a guilty sentence or jail time....then perhaps one shouldnt commit crime to begin with should they?

However, that can be worked on. A compromise can be reached, I am sure. But there is something that I am NOT prepared to compromise on. Denying ex-cons the vote? Is he serious? Have we suddenly become the United States? I can't say that I am terribly happy with current prisoners being denied the right to vote. Again, it comes back to the issue of serving your sentence and repaying your debt to society. A criminal should not be labelled a criminal for life.

As you are so quick to slam the United States I feel compelled to educate you. In the United States Ex-Cons can indeed petition the court to regain their right to vote, some few years (three in my state) after all their sentencing requirements have been met.

I draw your attention to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 5 states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Article 6 states "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.". Article 7 states "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

And I humbly submit that losing your right to vote in elections is neither degrading nor torture, nor cruel, inhuman punishment. In your world, you would seemingly allow former child rapists to go to work at a childrens school because they have paid their debt to society and shouldnt be under such stigma.:rolleyes:
 
rmsharpe said:
Davo, you have an infinite amount more knowledge of British political parties than I ever could muster. In your honest opinion, do you think the party is trying to pick up votes by being more conservative on law and order issues?
In short - Yes they are.

they are still Liberal on it in general, it's just that when you get the Tory party posting huge prints of Charles Kennedy's face during the election saying 'murders hould be able to vote' or whatnot it's best to try and address the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom