prisoners voting

[Zorak]

We're dealing with people on multiple benefits then, but unspecifiable ones?

I'm not convinced the system we employ now is perfect, far from it. But I won't be intimidated by the scare-mongering I read in the papers. If I hear or read of someone having afforded themselves a holiday to Ayia Napa, on benefits, I don't think; "Well, we're giving out too much in benefits." I wonder where they have found this income from, and why they haven't declared it.

I'm not going to sit here and 'bash the benefits.' Because I live predominatley off of Student Loan. Of course, I'll be paying it back in a few years, but at a very competetive rate enabled only through government subsidy. I'd advice anyone else who doesn't work full time to also consider their position.

 

[Springsteen]

I'm not convinced the system we employ now is perfect, far from it. But I won't be intimidated by the scare-mongering I read in the papers. If I hear or read of someone having afforded themselves a holiday to Ayia Napa, on benefits, I don't think; "Well, we're giving out too much in benefits." I wonder where they have found this income from, and why they haven't declared it.

Oh by no means do I listen to half of that in the papers like the sun/daily mail etc, because they paint a picture of Britain as being entirely like that on benefits, when clearly they aren't. As i said on this course I went on there was this guy who hadn't worked for 20 years, but there was also this guy who had been to uni and just couldn't find a job because nobody would employ him because he hadn't got the experience, despite having more qualifications than the tutor. Now I don't know, I think the government from what I read is bringing out this Universal credit system in the next few years to group together all these earnings from benefits into one payment to make it clearer I guess. I suppose in theory it sounds good but we'll see when it comes to the real thing.

The bottom part, I assume you refer to benefit fraud?

 

[Zorak]

Oh by no means do I listen to half of that in the papers like the sun/daily mail etc, because they paint a picture of Britain as being entirely like that on benefits, when clearly they aren't. As i said on this course I went on there was this guy who hadn't worked for 20 years, but there was also this guy who had been to uni and just couldn't find a job because nobody would employ him because he hadn't got the experience, despite having more qualifications than the tutor. Now I don't know, I think the government from what I read is bringing out this Universal credit system in the next few years to group together all these earnings from benefits into one payment to make it clearer I guess. I suppose in theory it sounds good but we'll see when it comes to the real thing.

The bottom part, I assume you refer to benefit fraud?

I haven't heard of universal credit, less red-tape and bureaucracy I suppose. Couldn't see much more benefit than that off the top of my head.

Yes, benefit fraud. But then, fraud is a problem central within the benefits system, but not exclusive to. The irony is, it costs a lot of money to catch benefit frauds.

 

[Springsteen]

This is true, I can't remember off the top off my head the amount it costs to tackle it but I seem to remember it's into the multimillions.

On Universal credit, found this article from the Guardian

Millions of welfare claimants are set to have their benefits scrapped and replaced with a single "universal credit", it was reported today.


The decision represents a victory for work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith in his lengthy battle with the Treasury over his plans to overhaul the welfare system, the Times reported.


Under the changes, housing benefit, income support, incapacity benefit and dozens of other payments will be swept away in a major reform programme intended to break the culture of welfare dependency by making work pay.
The new system will carry a guarantee that anyone taking a job will be better off than if they were on the dole, with claimants allowed to keep more of their benefits when they enter work or increase their hours.


Duncan Smith has made clear that the introduction of the universal credit is essential to his reform plans, and will bring long-term savings as the overall welfare bill falls.


But he faced fierce resistance from the Treasury, which feared that making the changes would be costly at a time when it is seeking major spending cuts across Whitehall.


Chancellor George Osborne has made clear that the cost of benefits must come down to cushion the impact of the cuts on other frontline public services.


The Times reported that the department for work and pensions (DWP) would be able to claim upfront a "large chunk" of the £9bn annual savings which Mr Duncan Smith believes the new system will achieve through lower administration costs and reduced fraud.


A DWP spokesman said: "We are working closely with the Treasury and any decisions will be made in the context of the spending review. We are all agreed on the urgent need to reform the welfare system and help more people into work and off benefits."

Actually back to benefit fraud for a second, I have a bigger problem with people claiming disability living allowance then being caught not being disabled than someone on JSA going out and doing a day's work. Sure they are both wrong but in the second case it's more a problem of, to me anyway, them not declaring that day's work.

 

[Meirionnydd]

<rant>Every new law is simply an admission by governments that they are hopeless at solving problems. Every new prisoner is the result of governmental ineptitude. For the most part, the penal system is simply a waste of time. Another big governmental fuck up.</rant>

Prisoners I think should be punished for their crimes. Then they should be rehabilitated. During the first part, the punishment, they should clearly have no right to vote. They are essentially removed from society during their punishment, therefore they should have zero say in what happens. During rehabilitation however, it's important to make prisoner feel included, to feel part of society again, so they should be able to vote.

So I believe they should be given the right to vote toward the ends of their sentences.

As for the perennially unemployed, personally, I'd treat them as criminals. They're parasites, just the same, and they're stealing off society. No one should be unemployed for more than a year or two. If they are, they need rehabilitating into the workplace. They should have the vote.

People don't go to prison to be punished, prison is the punishment, it's important to remember that.

Also, having a distinct phase of punishment followed by rehabilitation does not work. Any kind of harsh or unfair treatment in prison will lead to inmates becoming more aggressive and resistive of any later attempts of rehabilitation.

Prisoners should be allowed to vote, universal suffrage is arguably the most important part of a democratic soceity, and hence, everyone should have a say. In addition, violent offenders make up a VERY small amount of the offending population, so I don't think the discussion should become polarized by saying stuff like "should we allow pedophiles to vote?".

 

[Tuffdisc]

They can easily put ballot boxes in the prison itself

 

[edgray]

People don't go to prison to be punished, prison is the punishment, it's important to remember that.

Yes I understand this. I believe there should be separate facilities for rehabilitation, rather than trying to do the lot in one place. Prison should be a punishment, rehabilitation should come next.

Also, having a distinct phase of punishment followed by rehabilitation does not work. Any kind of harsh or unfair treatment in prison will lead to inmates becoming more aggressive and resistive of any later attempts of rehabilitation.

Where has this been shown? The results of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment showed the complete opposite of what you're saying. Aggressive techniques don't lead to return aggression, they lead to surrender.

Prisoners should be allowed to vote, universal suffrage is arguably the most important part of a democratic soceity, and hence, everyone should have a say. In addition, violent offenders make up a VERY small amount of the offending population, so I don't think the discussion should become polarized by saying stuff like "should we allow pedophiles to vote?".

I think someone who has committed any offense should lose their voting right until they're in the rehabilitation stage.

Also, just thinking about it, the vote is pretty worthless these days anyway. Why are we even bothering to discuss this? Either way, some dickhead still gets voted in and does nothing but take us further into global corporatocracy and shit on the working man. Who cares if some prisoners get the right to vote? The right to vote what? Between the lesser of two evils? Great choices.

Fuck democracy. It's a total sham.

 

[Accountable]

Drink your coffee.

 

[purpledove]

Yes I understand this. I believe there should be separate facilities for rehabilitation, rather than trying to do the lot in one place. Prison should be a punishment, rehabilitation should come next.

I agree :nod:

However that would be very ideal. In the real world of economic crisis, overpopulated prisons, lack of facilities to transfer for rehabilitation, lack of staff, prisoners getting bored staying day in, day out in their cell- creates more time for them to think/plan 'devious' things, deal with drugs etc and many other things that are existent in the prison world- your suggestion is excellent but not feasible at all. There are a lot more facets of the prison system that is not known to the outside world. How i wish myself that would happen. It would make everybody's life a lot easier.

As for SVPs though ( Sexually Violent Predators-which include Child molesters and Rapists) in California, a rehab facility was built for the sole purpose of rehabilitating these kinds of prisoners. Hence after their prison sentence and even after they had been let loose to the society --they are transferred to this facility for Rehab.

 

[edgray]

Drink your coffee.

feeling more relaxed now.

 

[The Man]

IMO everyone should have the right to vote if the are a legal citizen of that country.

We exclude people for something they have done...none the less they should have a vote,they should have say..thats whats is all about..taking away the right to vote also takes away from what the entire country wants...also if these people were allowed to vote "will what they are in for still be a crime"

 

[edgray]

if the vote actually mattered to people, it might be a way to disuade petty criminals from their actions... but really, I don't think the vote is particularly cherished by many these days.

 

[hart]

I think criminals should not be allowed to vote. I also always vote, I want to be able to bitch about things and if you don't vote, in my opinion, your bitchin' doesn't mean anything. If you did vote, you have my attention to what you think.

 

[edgray]

I think criminals should not be allowed to vote. I also always vote, I want to be able to bitch about things and if you don't vote, in my opinion, your bitchin' doesn't mean anything. If you did vote, you have my attention to what you think.

what if you believe the voting system, democracy as we know it, is flawed and needs to be changed? What do you vote for then? Voting is an admission that you agree with the system.

 

[The Man]

if the vote actually mattered to people, it might be a way to disuade petty criminals from their actions... but really, I don't think the vote is particularly cherished by many these days.

But they may not be petty criminals had everyone been allowed to vote.

Lets go extreme just for demonstration purposes.
I will use colors other than tax codes or crimes just for simplicity

The color blue is illegal..if you have blue you get locked up.
You can not vote to have blue not illegal while you are locked up.

Now there is a shift in power as more get caught with blue the more get locked up,

They cant vote it out the blue haters have gained control just by the very small initial advantage they achieved in the first place which compounded the power during the next cycle.

Ultimately blue is associated with crime,which may have not been the case had everyone been allowed to vote.

To further...more laws can be made to also limit other from voting..lets say you are behind on taxes or have an unpaid ticket.........we are separating the ability to vote based upon class when we do this,,,what happens next?...cant vote if you didnt go to college?...further separating classes.

 

[hart]

what if you believe the voting system, democracy as we know it, is flawed and needs to be changed? What do you vote for then? Voting is an admission that you agree with the system.

You have a right to write in a candidate. I don't think voting is an admission I agree with the system, voting is a tool to change the system. Our system, democracy, is not perfect, but I haven't seen a method of government I like better.

 

[edgray]

You have a right to write in a candidate. I don't think voting is an admission I agree with the system, voting is a tool to change the system. Our system, democracy, is not perfect, but I haven't seen a method of government I like better.

but the choices on offer are highly limited, and only cover a small section of the political spectrum. Not to mention there are other beliefs than our current representative democracy. How can you vote in a system outside of the current voting system?

 

[hart]

It's called a write in vote. Or, if you have some ideas you want implemented write your representatives, get a group of like minded individuals together and demonstrate peacefully, write to the editor in the Newspaper, I have a time or two and gotten phone calls of support at home. If you believe in something strong enuf, you will work at it.

 

[Francis]

seem you allude to two categories of prisoner the hard core life who cares not for rehab and will never see the light of day and the repentant guy who wants to change, in any event i highly doubt the numbers are high enough to justify the administration of a program that decides who does not and who does deserve the right, i say give everyone the right, most of the hard core would probably decline anyways and even if 1005 of all inmates voted i doubt it would make a dent in the outcome of any elections

and that makes me think of another thing, in the US dont you vote for local law enforcement/sherriffs?

An interesting concept - inmates voting in or out thsoe that have ultimate control over them

That's not true.. One vote has and can make a difference..

http://www.annarbor.com/news/county-commissioner-candidate-projecting-a-one-vote-win/

 

[Francis]

I always thought that unemployed people should be able to go and work for the community for their benefits. Unemployment is very demoralising and it's so easy to get depressed and unmotivated. A part time responsibility to the community in exchange for benefits could work wonders for everyone.

Stupidest idea ever.. I will tell you why..

If you make people "work" for the benefits, you are now employing them, hence compensation for work.. This was a hot topic that Unions jumped on here in Canada back in the early 1980s when the last big recession hit..

They were YAH make these people work and we can Unionize them as they will NOW be Government Employees.. That ended that idea real quick..