Lib Dems 'want violence register'

[El_Machinae]

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.

1 - felons are minority, and an insignificant one (maybe not in countries that jail a large portion of their citizens, though )
2 - some felons will be released into society during the term of a government they did not get to vote for. This becomes significant for people who're in jail for only a few months, or who are released shortly after the elections. They're going to be part of the society, so they should have a voice.
3 - removing the rights of felons to vote encourages jailing people who will vote agains the current government (slippery slope)
4 - a felon has a political opinion outside of their stereotype as a felon. Sure, they will vote for what they deem best for them (so does everyone), but not all these 'bests' will involve their treatment as felons

My main contention is number 3 - it's a slippery slope to remove people's right to vote. That's why it's enshrined in the Charter. The people in power are motivated to remain in power ... and if they can do that by jailing people, then they have a motivation to do that.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

they are still Liberal on it in general...

Doesn't it tell you anything that your main supporter in this thread is MobBoss ?!

PS No offense meant, MobBoss - I'm actually trying to stay out of the "is this right or wrong" part of the debate, as I'm more interested in just how willingly CD has followed the party line down a quite illberal (and even conservative) path....

 

[ComradeDavo]

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 ?

Hey LS, why don't you go to a search of threads i've made, find a poll about prisoners having the right to vote or not, see where I agree I think serious criminals shouldn't be able to, take of note the date I made it.

Alternatively, click here

I believe thats me differeing with the then Lib Dem policy

 

[Mise]

This isn't a big issue and I'll still be voting Lib Dem when the time comes, but this IS a lurch to the right, and this kind of populism is exactly why I wouldn't vote Red or Blue in the first place... He sounds just like Clarke and Blunkett. I don't like where this is headed tbh.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Doesn't it tell you anything that your main supporter in this thread is MobBoss ?!

PS No offense meant, MobBoss - I'm actually trying to stay out of the "is this right or wrong" part of the debate, as I'm more interested in just how willingly CD has followed the party line down a quite illberal (and even conservative) path....

MobBoss is saying all felons shouldn't be able to vote though. I'm saying that minor criminals should vote and actually I think that it is important that they do has part of their rehabilitation process. I don't think someone in prison for murder/rape/organised crime should be able to vote though. I do think they should be allowed to once they leave prison.

 

[Sims2789]

People are able to forfeit their liberty. One way of doing so is by committing a felony, hence my anger at the EU for forcing Britian to let prisoners vote.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Hey LS, why don't you go to a search of threads i've made, find a poll about prisoners having the right to vote or not, see where I agree I think serious criminals shouldn't be able to, take of note the date I made it.

Lord knows I quite like you, but giving up that amount of my life to reading your past posts would be a bit creepy, don't you think ? And unfortunately the one post didn't have enough context to be sure... but hell, I'm happy to believe that you were on the right of your party previously on this one. I still think that you'd throw the same speech from Charles Clarke down as being evidence of Labour's ongoing totalitarianism, just as you did in the ridiculous "Labour bans Top of the Pops" thread.

I believe thats me differeing with the then Lib Dem policy

There's a first time for everything.....

 

[ComradeDavo]

Lord knows I quite like you, but giving up that amount of my life to reading your past posts would be a bit creepy, don't you think ? And unfortunately the one post didn't have enough context to be sure... but hell, I'm happy to believe that you were on the right of your party previously on this one. I still think that you'd throw the same speech from Charles Clarke down as being evidence of Labour's ongoing totalitarianism, just as you did in the ridiculous "Labour bans Top of the Pops" thread.


There's a first time for everything.....

I didn't really expect you go through past posts Hence posting the example!

An dyes, I know I am being biased on this particular issue, but I am so because I understand the need for the Lib Dems to try and alter their image on crime to combat the Tories.

 

[Rik Meleet]

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.

You mustn't turn "taking away the right to vote" around to "Why is allowing felons to vote a good idea".

That is a very fundamental something. The right to vote is not something that should be able to be taken away. Under no circumstance should the state / law enforcement be able to do that to the people who basically are the ones who elect them, because that is very abusable. You create a presedence in which the governing powers can decide who can elect (them) and who cannot elect (others). Very bad idea.

 

[tomsnowman123]

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.

But it basically means you have no say at all in the government. Taking away a right that makes a country less democratic and more authoritarian, as Rik Meleet said, it starts to influence the results of voting. What's next? Do governments start taking the vote away from drug users because their perception may be warped? How much farther does the government go? You can't just start telling certain peeople that they can no longer vote, that is taking away a basic right.

 

[mdwh]

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.

But who decides which are "serious" and which are petty? Please don't tell me it's decided by Government which was voted in by those allowed to vote!

It's not clear to me at all - I think that petty theft should certainly be illegal, but I think drugs should be legal - yet dealing some drugs is a very serious crime. It's a circular argument to say that people don't deserve to have a say in Government when they've broken the law, when the law is only decided by that Government!

I'm a Lib Dem voter, but I disagree with this. Though ironically, I can see it winning votes with most people, and so being a good thing indirectly...

 

[mdwh]

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.

Because morality isn't absolute - which things should be crimes is something that we should all have a say in.

Now, it's up to you to tell us why letting people convicted of a crime vote is a bad thing?

And removing the vote isn't a punishment - it's preventing from democracy from working, which affects us all, including non-criminals (e.g., if I think drugs should be legal, but nonetheless refrain from breaking the law, I am still adversely affected if those convicted of taking drugs are not allowed to vote for a party which might bring in more sensible drug laws).

 

[simonnomis]

I agree that those who commit serious criminal offences against society should, at least for a period of time, lose their right to vote within that society. It is part of their punishment for ignoring the rules of that society, and ultimately part of their rehabilitation too.

 

[Mise]

I think the government should imprison members of the opposition, and remove their right to vote (free speech too, naturally).

There's something quite perverse about a body that people vote for deciding who gets to vote.

 

[simonnomis]

There's something quite perverse about a body that people vote for deciding who gets to vote.

I would much prefer an elected body to decide rules and laws than an unelected dictatorship deciding instead. Its not as if every living person has ever had the right to vote anyway. We, as a society, are constantly making choices about who can and who cant; what is right and what is not.

Perhaps a referendum would be more your thing. That would be the most direct and democratic way of society deciding how to operate. Yet I rather doubt the results of a referendum on the issue, even one in which serious criminals voted, would come down in favor of the criminal's rights to vote.

 

[mdwh]

I would much prefer an elected body to decide rules and laws than an unelected dictatorship deciding instead.

Yes, of course - but...

Its not as if every living person has ever had the right to vote anyway. We, as a society, are constantly making choices about who can and who cant; what is right and what is not.

It's absurd when you put these both together, and have an elected body who decides who gets to vote for them!

Perhaps a referendum would be more your thing. That would be the most direct and democratic way of society deciding how to operate. Yet I rather doubt the results of a referendum on the issue, even one in which serious criminals voted, would come down in favor of the criminal's rights to vote.

No, that would be just as bad - minority people would quickly be forced out of the picture, as 51% of the people could vote to say that 49% of the people shouldn't be allowed to vote...

It's all very well talking about murderers and rapists, but this system also forces out people who imo are guilty of no immorality, such as drug users, and could easily include homosexuality, people of a certain religion and so on.

What are you so scared of? That they'll vote in a "make murder legal" party? Heh.

 

[simonnomis]

Yes, of course - but...

It's absurd when you put these both together, and have an elected body who decides who gets to vote for them!

Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that this already happens to a section of the population we consider to be mentally unable to make these decisions? Or to people between the ages of 0-18 in most countries? There will always be an elected body making these decisions. We vote for them and in doing so trust them to work in our interests. And most do. Otherwise we have referenda, which you clearly also don't like the sound of.

No, that would be just as bad - minority people would quickly be forced out of the picture, as 51% of the people could vote to say that 49% of the people shouldn't be allowed to vote...

Well that would still be a majority decision, unlike most taken by governments (as their legitimacy is based on plurality in many countries). And your scenario completely lacks realism, as no government would propose a referendum that asked for 49% of the population to be stripped of their rights. Common sense still prevails in most things, otherwise states fall apart. Making ludicrous laws would result in the system collapsing from internal unrest. Just because a body technically has the power to do something, it doesn't mean it will. They are still constrained by the society in which they live.

It's all very well talking about murderers and rapists, but this system also forces out people who imo are guilty of no immorality, such as drug users, and could easily include homosexuality, people of a certain religion and so on.

I did not read anything that states that "people ... such as drug users ... homosexual, people of a certain religion and so on" would be included in this proposition. No one with half a mind would ever come up with such a law either. And laws also don't have to be 'apocalyptic' and include every single prisoner. It really is quite easy to differentiate between them.

What are you so scared of? That they'll vote in a "make murder legal" party? Heh.

Not at all. But I do see the right to vote as one of the most powerful we have as law-abiding individuals in a democracy. And I believe a person who commits a serious felony should lose this priviledge as part of their punishment. It really is that simple. Who knows, as a bonus it might help them to appreciate the value of this right, and thus encourage them not to commit another crime in the future.

 

[Neomega]

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.

Everybody has different views on what serious is, and as the whims of the nation changes, so too will the definition of serious. When politics are slow, and crime is about the only discussion, very petty crimes will suddenly be considered "serious"

I did not read anything that states that "people ... such as drug users ... homosexual, people of a certain religion and so on" would be included in this proposition. No one with half a mind would ever come up with such a law either.

Half a mind yes, but politicians, they don't really have a mind, and they get to make the rules. There are plenty of politicnas who think prostitution is worse than carjacking or selling marijuana is worse than burglery.

 

[zulu9812]

I am horribly reminded of how Labour became New Labour. They realised that the Conservativers are the natural party of government, and to get into government meant becoming like the Conservatives. Woe betide us when the Liberal Demcorats do the same.

Elections in this country have become a dutch auction between Labour and the Conservatives: about who can be more right-wing than the other. This country has been crying out for a genuine, left-wing, liberal, humanitarian alternative. Ming Campbell has sold us down the river. our principles are our principles, and will not be compromised on.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Well, I was very surprised at this from the LibDems. Ming has always looked like a Tory MP and now he sounds like one!

You don’t suppose this is his opening shot in his bid for a cabinet post in a Con-Lib pact at the next election?