Do we really want a government led by a person who is made physically sick by the thought of prisoners having the vote?
i wondered why I had to wait 6 hours in Cas. the other day.
I am with the PM re prisoners and voting.
Dissallusioned SW~ May I ask why? Given that reintegration is seen as beneficial to prisoners and society alike. Surely there is a positive feeling coming out into a world that' in however small a way you feel you had a stake in forming. Social inclusion is a lot about what goes on in people's heads.
Once people have been sentenced everyone should be looking forward to discharge and setting things up in an optimum way that avoids repeat offending. We all know how difficult that is and every opportunity should be utilised for a positive outcome.
Therefor if we are looking forwards there is no point in adopting a retributive negative stance, which presumably you can only be supportive of in terms of deterrent. I have never met a recidivist who said to his mate we can't do this or we will be barred from voting. So what other value does it have, other than catching votes from people like yourself?
for once I agree with Shirack good post
adarynefoedd: for once I agree with Shirack good post
Me too :)
spot on shirack
well said shirack i to agree
I'm with...... the PM. However, not the physically sick bit.
Two people with Dave yet neither have said why. This is not a poll. I would like to understand the other view, please help me.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/FREE-PRISONER-BEN/281247311070#!/pages/FREE-PRISONER-BEN/281247311070?v=info
this is an interesting case and not the only one probably,i think one of the reasons amongst many is that prisoners should have the vote because if they are to feel that they will become part of a society they want to invest in again they need to feel they have a say in it, we have to remember that not all prisoners are rapists and murderers .........we have enviromental protesters in prison who after all were only trying to make the world a better place, people who have unpaid fines who can't pay because of social circumstances,drug users whom are damaged from neglectful pasts ...... what i am trying to say is that prisoners are not a homogeneous group..the argument against is like saying all prisoners are evil and could not be trusted with a vote! come one people we have moved on haven't we against the inherently evil debate haven't we nature v nurture
anyway look at the goverment we have got without letting prisoners have a vote surely they couldnot make things worse !
us social workers are supposed to be advocates for human rights aren't we?
ladybird: the argument against is like saying all prisoners are evil and could not be trusted with a vote! come one people we have moved on haven't we against the inherently evil debate haven't we nature v nurture
the argument against is like saying all prisoners are evil and could not be trusted with a vote! come one people we have moved on haven't we against the inherently evil debate haven't we nature v nurture
Thats a little ott. My arguement is those that are in prison have caused some sort of destruction to society and acted in a way that could have put other peoples rights at risk. In essence they have acted in a way that not acceptable and therefore some liberties need to be taken away. Committing a crime comes with a punishment, for some that means prison. As well as human rights we strive for social justice, and when prisoners have committed a crime that has, in some way, impacted on another individual, in my opinion they deserve not to be able to shape the way in our government work, the rules we obide by, the direction society is taking etc. Obviously these sorts of things are very personal, just refrain from using Human Rights as a loophole for condoning behaviour.
Andy_Pandy: ladybird: the argument against is like saying all prisoners are evil and could not be trusted with a vote! come one people we have moved on haven't we against the inherently evil debate haven't we nature v nurture Thats a little ott. My arguement is those that are in prison have caused some sort of destruction to society and acted in a way that could have put other peoples rights at risk. In essence they have acted in a way that not acceptable and therefore some liberties need to be taken away. Committing a crime comes with a punishment, for some that means prison. As well as human rights we strive for social justice, and when prisoners have committed a crime that has, in some way, impacted on another individual, in my opinion they deserve not to be able to shape the way in our government work, the rules we obide by, the direction society is taking etc. Obviously these sorts of things are very personal, just refrain from using Human Rights as a loophole for condoning behaviour.
Must admit, I have never worked in criminal justice, so it is difficult to understand those issues. But surely, we must balance rights and responsibilities.... you dont act responsibly then rights are taken away. I don't think my mind will be changed on this, but i'm open to challenge. On a more political note, if not voting is causing such a chip on offenders shoulder, surely it is having its desired effect? They are thinking about the consequences of their actions? Learning to value freedom? I don't know.
Andy_Pandy: Must admit, I have never worked in criminal justice, so it is difficult to understand those issues. But surely, we must balance rights and responsibilities.... you dont act responsibly then rights are taken away. I don't think my mind will be changed on this, but i'm open to challenge. On a more political note, if not voting is causing such a chip on offenders shoulder, surely it is having its desired effect? They are thinking about the consequences of their actions? Learning to value freedom? I don't know.
You don't have to have worked in the CJ system to understand this.
hmmmm I shall have to think about that some more... good question.