NationStates Jolt Archive

This year's Canadian federal election will be the first one in which prisoners will be allowed to vote. Apparently we're one of the few countries in the world to give prisoners this privilege, and plenty of Canadians don't agree with it.

What say y'all?

Why wouldnt It be? Isnt the point of Prison to rehabilitate convicts to be respectable citizens?

Im not sure about this one either, becuase currently incarcerated prisoners dont pay taxes, so Im not sure they are entitled to have a say...
but upon release...absolutely.

Unless of course you live in florida.

Depends what they are in for.
Coruption in an election and they can still vote?

60 years for the murder of 20 kids?

assault, first offence then yes. So the privelage of the vote given to all prisoners, don't think so.

I have no idea how voting could be revoked by being in prison. You do not become an alien just by being in prison. I have no idea why some people here have the opinion that prisoners have no rights whatsoever, which is far from the truth. Unfortunately the rights of prisoners are trampled down almost everywhere: I am glad that Canada is as progressive as it is, every nation should aim to have laws like Canada, which are very human-friendly and progressive in just about every aspect.

Im not sure about this one either, becuase currently incarcerated prisoners dont pay taxes, so Im not sure they are entitled to have a say...
Besides, their currency is cigarettes, fellatio, and anal sex. How exactly do you tax that?

Im not sure about this one either, becuase currently incarcerated prisoners dont pay taxes, so Im not sure they are entitled to have a say...
Besides, their currency is cigarettes, fellatio, and anal sex. How exactly do you tax that?

fellatio = oral?

fellatio = oral?
If you are curious I'll give you two packs of smokes to find out. But I'll have to take 4 smokes for the government. Your T4 will come in March.

I'm not sure what the Canadian Constitution says, but here voting is a right. Denying prisoners/felons the right to vote makes it a priviledge, which is something different. Of course, I don't think the Constitution defined what a "right" is, so perhaps they meant priviledge.

They shouldn't be allowed to vote until they do their time or are released on parole. The system is supposed to punish them, not provide them with all the privileges/rights outside while incarcerated.

I wonder if people who say yes would allow someone who had committed treason to vote?

They shouldn't be allowed to vote until they do their time or are released on parole. The system is supposed to punish them, not provide them with all the privileges/rights outside while incarcerated.

I wonder if people who say yes would allow someone who had committed treason to vote?

You'll probably not believe me, but the loss of freedom is already a very significant punishment.

Not the way most prisons are set up. Many of the inmates have cable TV, internet access, 3 meals a day, the option of using weights... That's more than most people on the "outside" have. Many of them also get college degrees (Law, PHD, ect...) while on the "inside" and they get these degrees without having to pay college tuitions! Granted many prisons are changing their policies on a lot of these issues, but I was tempted to commit a crime just to finish my degree. There's something wrong with the system if people would rather be inside a prison than out in the real world.

Not the way most prisons are set up. Many of the inmates have cable TV, internet access, 3 meals a day, the option of using weights... That's more than most people on the "outside" have. Many of them also get college degrees (Law, PHD, ect...) while on the "inside" and they get these degrees without having to pay college tuitions! Granted many prisons are changing their policies on a lot of these issues, but I was tempted to commit a crime just to finish my degree. There's something wrong with the system if people would rather be inside a prison than out in the real world.

Most prisoners live in a constant fear of being assaulted, raped or possibly murdered. Prisoners are generally given these things to make them behave, and indeed, not all prisoners have access to them. Letting them study for degrees helps them when they get back into the real world.

I have no idea how voting could be revoked by being in prison. You do not become an alien just by being in prison. I have no idea why some people here have the opinion that prisoners have no rights whatsoever, which is far from the truth. Unfortunately the rights of prisoners are trampled down almost everywhere: I am glad that Canada is as progressive as it is, every nation should aim to have laws like Canada, which are very human-friendly and progressive in just about every aspect.

And what of the rights of their victims?...the rape victims..the murdered.. the fleeced of their money...the robbery victims...what of their rights?... or are they no longer citizens?...Why on earth should a prisoner who violated the laws of his country be entitled to vote?...Rehab?...surely they should seek redemption from their victims first?...Prison should be about incarceration first...rehabilition only if they seek it...but as nearly 80% of prisoners are repeat offenders..doesn't appear to me they desire rehabilitation...nor should they be allowed to vote..Thank God or whomever you please that such a policy doesn't drift south to the US...you can keep that policy in Canada thank you very much.

Not the way most prisons are set up. Many of the inmates have cable TV, internet access, 3 meals a day, the option of using weights... That's more than most people on the "outside" have. Many of them also get college degrees (Law, PHD, ect...) while on the "inside" and they get these degrees without having to pay college tuitions! Granted many prisons are changing their policies on a lot of these issues, but I was tempted to commit a crime just to finish my degree. There's something wrong with the system if people would rather be inside a prison than out in the real world.

Most prisoners live in a constant fear of being assaulted, raped or possibly murdered. Prisoners are generally given these things to make them behave, and indeed, not all prisoners have access to them. Letting them study for degrees helps them when they get back into the real world.
Which is great for first offences but how many chances do you give them. My view is first offence, give them all the help you can, second and third then cool hand Luke looks like a good model to me.

People in prison shouldn´t have the right to vote. At the end we end up that they end up they elect their wardens or a some stupid left-wing softie government which doesn´t crack down on crime but serves the criminals.
They may get their voting right back after the spent their term in prison.
But for some criminals - like does who were punished for treason - the right should never be given back.

I dunno. Looking at the ethics of the average politician - I think letting criminals vote can really be considered a professional curtousy!

:lol:

but seriously - lets remember all of the the things you might be in jail for. It's not all murderers and rapists. Suppose you are in for vagrancy during an economic recession (i.e., in jail for the crime of being poor). Don't you think that this person might just have a vested interest in who might be running the country next to get the economy rolling again?

Also, Canada has a much smaller per-capita prison population than the US (yes America, you are still ranked #1 in the world in that regard! ), so the odds of it impacting the outcome is much smaller.

But to my mind a prisoner does not give up citizenship, and we hold that voting is a right of every citizen. As such, they should be permitted to have their say. They do, after all, have famillies outside the walls who's welfare they might want to try and influence.


-Z-

I dunno. Looking at the ethics of the average politician - I think letting criminals vote can really be considered a professional curtousy!

:lol:

but seriously - lets remember all of the the things you might be in jail for. It's not all murderers and rapists. Suppose you are in for vagrancy during an economic recession (i.e., in jail for the crime of being poor). Don't you think that this person might just have a vested interest in who might be running the country next to get the economy rolling again?

Also, Canada has a much smaller per-capita prison population than the US (yes America, you are still ranked #1 in the world in that regard! ), so the odds of it impacting the outcome is much smaller.

But to my mind a prisoner does not give up citizenship, and we hold that voting is a right of every citizen. As such, they should be permitted to have their say. They do, after all, have famillies outside the walls who's welfare they might want to try and influence.


-Z-

Perhaps it's different in Canada..but convicted felons lose their right to vote..lesser crimes...misdemeanors are different...but I do think a suspension of their right to vote should be in order..until their release.

Even though I'm a Conservative, prisoners should have the vote because it starts them on the path to mental (if that was their problem) recovery. Makes them think a little bit, ask questions. I know most Canadians disagree with it and I can see where that side may be justified but the fact is that the decision has been made, so we might as well live with it. Besides, they won't make or break this election, although I heard somewhere that convicts will vote for parties with tough views on Criminal Justice, doesn't sound right but hey, I wouldn't care if they did. Helps our cause.

I dunno. Looking at the ethics of the average politician - I think letting criminals vote can really be considered a professional curtousy!

:lol:

but seriously - lets remember all of the the things you might be in jail for. It's not all murderers and rapists. Suppose you are in for vagrancy during an economic recession (i.e., in jail for the crime of being poor). Don't you think that this person might just have a vested interest in who might be running the country next to get the economy rolling again?

Also, Canada has a much smaller per-capita prison population than the US (yes America, you are still ranked #1 in the world in that regard! ), so the odds of it impacting the outcome is much smaller.

But to my mind a prisoner does not give up citizenship, and we hold that voting is a right of every citizen. As such, they should be permitted to have their say. They do, after all, have famillies outside the walls who's welfare they might want to try and influence.


-Z-

Perhaps it's different in Canada..but convicted felons lose their right to vote..lesser crimes...misdemeanors are different...but I do think a suspension of their right to vote should be in order..until their release.

Actually, convicted felons only loose their rights to vote in some states. It is not a legally mandated restriction under federal law. And even then diferent states have diferent rules as to what crimes qualify as felonies, so there is no consistency accross the states at all.

I just wonder, does suspending voting rights really punish a convict? Or are you just being petty and removing what should be an inherent right of citizenship from him for no really valid reason? The argument that they do not pay taxes is moot also. You do not, after all, need to have an income to vote. Just ask any student of voting age living on grant money if they should be disallowed to vote based upon their lack of income.


-Z-

People in prison shouldn´t have the right to vote. At the end we end up that they end up they elect...some stupid left-wing softie government which doesn´t crack down on crime but serves the criminals

It might surprise you to learn that studies have shown that prisoners tend to hold quite Conservative polititical views. This is due primarily to a lack of education and an environment that fosters hard-heartedness.

What? You mean hardcore criminals getting 20 years to life can vote?

So your saying...that politicians can sway in favor of prisoners in order to gain more votes?

Sick Canada. Really sick.

@Garaj Mahal,

I strongly doubt that. In my country a very substantial amount of prisoners are foreigners or citizens of foreign decents or who were born abroad. They tend to vote socialists and the greens to an amount very much higher than the average population.
But even if it is different: i would still oppose it. Criminals loose their freedom and their freedom to vote as long as they are in prison. If they are released they may get it back - except when they are traitors.
We see it as very silly to allow prisoners to vote. At the end the politicans go to the prisons promising the prisoners a swimming pool if they elect them. Especially in small cities or towns with bit prisons nearby they could be determining elections - or in other words: the criminals would be determining the outcome of the election. We see that as OUTRAGEOUS.

But it is your problem what your silly canadians do. The other countries are not so stupid to allow gay marriage or prisoner voting.

What? You mean hardcore criminals getting 20 years to life can vote?

So your saying...that politicians can sway in favor of prisoners in order to gain more votes?

Sick Canada. Really sick.

So, you're saying that people in prison give up their citizenship?

And you are honestly suggesting that a politician is going to alter his platform to pander to the one out of every thousand Canadians who happens to be incarcerated thinking that this will constitute the swing vote?

(Note that the 1 in 1000 stat is for ALL prisoners. The total serving 20year+ sentances is much, much lower than that.)

Farfetched Colodia. Really farfetched.

-Z-

If you're 18 and a Canadian citizen, yes, you should have every right to vote. You're still part of the system. No where does it say you must be a tax payer to vote in an election in this country. Simply that you must be a citizen. Given that a lot of corruption on the part of the system does take place in many prisons, letting them vote I think is a good thing. It would go a long way in helping reform the system, (which quite frankly many believe to be broken in this country) if the very people it affects had a say in the process. I'm all for it, personally.

((bump))

The fact that prisonners have their freedom taken away is not punishment enough. Until they have completed their punishment for whatever crime they have committed, their right to vote should be stripped.

The fact that prisonners have their freedom taken away is not punishment enough. Until they have completed their punishment for whatever crime they have committed, their right to vote should be stripped.

The fact that prisonners have their freedom taken away is not punishment enough. Until they have completed their punishment for whatever crime they have committed, their right to vote should be stripped.

On the other hand, given the choices available in some elections - forcing them to vote might just be a punishment!

Why should their citizen's rights be suspended/usrupted because they have broken the laws and are found guilty?

JiangGuo

Why should their citizen's rights be suspended/usrupted because they have broken the laws and are found guilty?

JiangGuo

Well, here's another way to look at it. Most people in jail won't be there for life. In fact the majority of people in Canadian prisons will be released in time. One of the huge problems with people who re-offend is that they don't live within the system that the rest of us do. By letting them vote.. they may take an interest in how and why our system works. (Which most have never voted a day in their life because they have not lived within the system) Thus it will help them to get ready to try to become a productive member of society.. Letting them vote isn't like letting them out to go have a few beers.. It's letting them take part in a system that they probably never did before. Or at least many of them.

They're over 18 and a Canadian citizen they have a right to vote.

The fact that prisonners have their freedom taken away is not punishment enough. Until they have completed their punishment for whatever crime they have committed, their right to vote should be stripped.

On the other hand, given the choices available in some elections - forcing them to vote might just be a punishment!

lol, maybe so :D

Why should their citizen's rights be suspended/usrupted because they have broken the laws and are found guilty?

JiangGuo

Because they have violated the laws of the land and through their actions shown an abject contempt towards the general good. Retracting their freedom and their right to vote is sufficient punishment in my eyes.

I ask again; Would you agree that someone who has committed treason against Canada be allowed to vote in the elections?

Because they have violated the laws of the land and through their actions shown an abject contempt towards the general good. Retracting their freedom and their right to vote is sufficient punishment in my eyes.

I hereby demand that you apply the same standards on your President, George Walker Bush (if he happens to be your president that is, in which case you have my deepest condolences. If he isnt your president then my congratulations)

I hope i don't offend to many people, but i don't believe that someone who has murdered or molested someone should be capable of choosing someone that effects a nation. I know that they represent a minority, but many of them can't be in the right state of mind. What kind of politician would want to appeal to inmates? His choices that he would make in office couldn't be very beneficial.

Because they have violated the laws of the land and through their actions shown an abject contempt towards the general good. Retracting their freedom and their right to vote is sufficient punishment in my eyes.


However at this point your citizenship rights may be being removed depending on the judge you happened to get. Where one judge mandates probation for a crime, another might give jail time. If the criteria applied for denying voting rights only relates to the sentance given then it becomes a case where two people convicted of the same crime receive a diferential penalty that I do not feel should be within the realm of a judicial appointment. Let's face it, most people in jail are there for short periods, and so this becomes an extra punishment regarding your basic rights as a citizen that may apply depending only on when you got convicted.

Indeed, consider two people convicted today of a minor offense. One is employed and is allowed to serve their 30 days on weekends. The other is unemplyed and so is required to serve their 30 days straight. Given that the Federal election is to be held on a Monday, under current legislation the first person would be able to vote wheras the second would not. This becomes a removal of rights applied to the second person simply for the additional "crime" of being unemployed.

At least in the US when applied it removes those rights permanently for those convicted of felonies. While I do not agree that this should be the case, it is applied as a consistant part of the punishment rather than a possible side-effect.


I ask again; Would you agree that someone who has committed treason against Canada be allowed to vote in the elections?

That I would consider a specific case that should probably be considered. Howver in the scope of the discussion at hand it hardly relates to the prison population as a whole.

-Z-

I hope i don't offend to many people, but i don't believe that someone who has murdered or molested someone should be capable of choosing someone that effects a nation. I know that they represent a minority, but many of them can't be in the right state of mind. What kind of politician would want to appeal to inmates? His choices that he would make in office couldn't be very beneficial.

Well, not too many offenders in this country stay in jail for the rest of their lives. This isn't America. We have some in forever under the dangerous offender act. I just believe that voting is not as much of a privilege or right as much as it's a responsibility. Therefore.. every one should vote. I agree with it personally as I have stated in my above posts for a variety of different reasons.

I hope i don't offend to many people, but i don't believe that someone who has murdered or molested someone should be capable of choosing someone that effects a nation. I know that they represent a minority, but many of them can't be in the right state of mind. What kind of politician would want to appeal to inmates? His choices that he would make in office couldn't be very beneficial.

Well, not too many offenders in this country stay in jail for the rest of their lives. This isn't America. We have some in forever under the dangerous offender act. I just believe that voting is not as much of a privilege or right as much as it's a responsibility. Therefore.. every one should vote. I agree with it personally as I have stated in my above posts for a variety of different reasons.
Unfortunately, those in prison (the dangerous ones at least) have shown that they are NOT responsible citizens, as Vorringia put it shown an abject contempt towards the general good..
Being that the purpose of elections is to select those officials who should best represent the people and work towards the common good, allowing someone who has shown contempt towards the general good, would be detrimental to the system.

Example:
Fred is a felon convicted of the rape and murder of little Suzy (12 yr old female). He's serving a life sentence. Fred has shown contempt for the major mores of the society. (Rape and killing are wrong, constitute rather universal mores)
Now, here's the question:

Would you trust this man to choose your leader?
If so, why?
If not, why?

Now, lets say that Fred's sentence was 25 yrs (without parole). (Given the judicial systems of some countries, it's a very real possibility). He gets out after 25 yrs, not because he's proven that he is reformed, just that his time is up.
Again,
Would you trust this man to choose your leader?
Furthermore, do you believe he has been "rehabilitated".
If so, why?
If not, why?







Note: I refer to those who commit crimes against others. Those who have only harmed themselves (such as drug users), are a different matter. (Drug use should be a personal choice.) But that is for another thread.

Would you trust this man to choose your leader?
If so, why?
If not, why?

Because it's part of the people that make up your country. Some times laws are stupid, some times they're not. Don't under estimate the knowledge of some ex-con that has done time in a prison and sees a different world. One we shall never know. (well, most of us)

Canada doesn't have the same crime as the USA. We don't have all that many murders in our system per capita.

If one of our goals is to rehabilitate people that we know are coming back to society, should we not make this part of the process?

In other words, you might be surprised how many people in prison you could get involved in activism and believing in a cause, some times believing in some thing for the first time in their life.

Not every one feels this way. However, those who get a chance to be exposed to the process and understanding how politics effects us all, usually have a deeper respect for that very system. Or you learn to work within the system because you learn it's the only way to change things.

I can't think of many people in need of lesson of this type more then people in prison.

I also don't believe they would affect the election any way. However, what a great lesson in pride of country and perhaps a re-focus. It's worth it.

You didn't answer the question.
Do you trust Fred to affect the course of your life and the lives of your children.
I'm not asking for how much nicer Canada "is", I'm asking if you trust the man.

You can shove sunshine and candies down his throat all day, but there is no garuantee that he will change for the better.

You didn't answer the question.
Do you trust Fred to affect the course of your life and the lives of your children.
I'm not asking for how much nicer Canada "is", I'm asking if you trust the man.

You can shove sunshine and candies down his throat all day, but there is no garuantee that he will change for the better.

Well, unless a political party was running on the platform to legalize said rapes of 12-year olds, then one would assume that he was probably not voting on anything related to his pedophelia.

So, why should I neccessarily assume that his opinion on fiscal policies would be any better or worse than some of the uneducated idiots I'm met who are certainly able to vote?

Would I trust the man with my daughter? No. Of course not.
Has this man been stripped of his citizenship? Also no.

Anyway, you are trying to use the extreme case as the baseline when we both no that this is not representative of the general case. I mean, we allow admited neo-nazis, admitted communists, and people of other stated opinions completely at odds with the societal norms of opinions to vote. Those people we KNOW will try and vote in parties and policies that we disagree with, and yet we protect their constitutional rights to do so. The assumption that the average criminal will somehow vote to Canada's detriment is just that - an assumption.

They are still citizens. And, as Stephistan mentioned, perhaps getting involved in the political process can be used as an education and rehabilitation tool.

-Z-

You didn't answer the question.
Do you trust Fred to affect the course of your life and the lives of your children.
I'm not asking for how much nicer Canada "is", I'm asking if you trust the man.

You can shove sunshine and candies down his throat all day, but there is no garuantee that he will change for the better.

Well, unless a political party was running on the platform to legalize said rapes of 12-year olds, then one would assume that he was probably not voting on anything related to his pedophelia.

So, why should I neccessarily assume that his opinion on fiscal policies would be any better or worse than some of the uneducated idiots I'm met who are certainly able to vote?

Would I trust the man with my daughter? No. Of course not.
Has this man been stripped of his citizenship? Also no.

Anyway, you are trying to use the extreme case as the baseline when we both no that this is not representative of the general case. I mean, we allow admited neo-nazis, admitted communists, and people of other stated opinions completely at odds with the societal norms of opinions to vote. Those people we KNOW will try and vote in parties and policies that we disagree with, and yet we protect their constitutional rights to do so. The assumption that the average criminal will somehow vote to Canada's detriment is just that - an assumption.

They are still citizens. And, as Stephistan mentioned, perhaps getting involved in the political process can be used as an education and rehabilitation tool.

-Z-
No, not the baseline. Simply an example.

Second, I doubt anyone would want to legalize said rape, but some parties would certainly favor punishments for said crime that are more to Fred's liking.

I mean, we allow admited neo-nazis, admitted communists, and people of other stated opinions completely at odds with the societal norms of opinions to vote. Those people we KNOW will try and vote in parties and policies that we disagree with, and yet we protect their constitutional rights to do so.
Ah, but unlike Fred, these people choose to work inside the system. Fred doesn't.

The assumption that the average criminal will somehow vote to Canada's detriment is just that - an assumption.It's also an assumption to assume that he won't.

As it is, I'm willing to give minor offenders a second chance.
Hardcore offenders however, get no sympathy.

No, not the baseline. Simply an example.

Second, I doubt anyone would want to legalize said rape, but some parties would certainly favor punishments for said crime that are more to Fred's liking.


Let's all remember the last time a party ran on the platform: "Shorter sentances for rapists and murderers" shall we?


Hmmmmmmmmmm.... that would be.... never?


However you fail to note one other point. This law relates only to restrictions on those in incarceration. Following your logic this person will still vote that way on release, so at best you are only delaying his vote.

Frankly, I see the possible benefits to the bulk of the prisoners who are in for minor offenses as far outwieghing the extreme cases that you are attaching your argument to. And I also am firm in my belief that this is an inherent right of citizenship.

-Z-

The assumption that the average criminal will somehow vote to Canada's detriment is just that - an assumption.It's also an assumption to assume that he won't.

It's not an assumption that idiots vote to the detriment of Canada in every election..

The prison population is not large enough in Canada to make any real difference.

You didn't answer the question.
Do you trust Fred to affect the course of your life and the lives of your children.
I'm not asking for how much nicer Canada "is", I'm asking if you trust the man.

You can shove sunshine and candies down his throat all day, but there is no garuantee that he will change for the better.

Well, unless a political party was running on the platform to legalize said rapes of 12-year olds, then one would assume that he was probably not voting on anything related to his pedophelia.

So, why should I neccessarily assume that his opinion on fiscal policies would be any better or worse than some of the uneducated idiots I'm met who are certainly able to vote?

Would I trust the man with my daughter? No. Of course not.
Has this man been stripped of his citizenship? Also no.

Anyway, you are trying to use the extreme case as the baseline when we both no that this is not representative of the general case. I mean, we allow admited neo-nazis, admitted communists, and people of other stated opinions completely at odds with the societal norms of opinions to vote. Those people we KNOW will try and vote in parties and policies that we disagree with, and yet we protect their constitutional rights to do so. The assumption that the average criminal will somehow vote to Canada's detriment is just that - an assumption.

They are still citizens. And, as Stephistan mentioned, perhaps getting involved in the political process can be used as an education and rehabilitation tool.

-Z-
I would much prefer that criminals get to vote than having people use criminal activities to REMOVE LEGAL voters from voting lists as what happened in Florida.

Not the way most prisons are set up. Many of the inmates have cable TV, internet access, 3 meals a day, the option of using weights... That's more than most people on the "outside" have. Many of them also get college degrees (Law, PHD, ect...) while on the "inside" and they get these degrees without having to pay college tuitions! Granted many prisons are changing their policies on a lot of these issues, but I was tempted to commit a crime just to finish my degree. There's something wrong with the system if people would rather be inside a prison than out in the real world.

I beleive that would be called REHABILITATION.

Regardless, They are still citizens. And if you were convicted of treason I'm fairly sure you would be executed. They should get to vote like any other citizen.

Let's all remember the last time a party ran on the platform: "Shorter sentances for rapists and murderers" shall we?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... that would be.... never?
-Z-
Really?
Considering said move would be political suicide, that's a no brainer.

However that doesn't stop parties from favoring softer sentences for criminals and treatment of Fred that is less harsh than the treatment favored by a different political party.

Let's all remember the last time a party ran on the platform: "Shorter sentances for rapists and murderers" shall we?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... that would be.... never?
-Z-
Really?
Considering said move would be political suicide, that's a no brainer.

However that doesn't stop parties from favoring softer sentences for criminals and treatment of Fred that is less harsh than the treatment favored by a different political party.

You're not listening to me, the Canadian prison population is not enough to matter. Not really. They would never lets say build a voting block. Not only is it very unlikely for them to organize in this fashion. There is not enough of them to do it.

Let's all remember the last time a party ran on the platform: "Shorter sentances for rapists and murderers" shall we?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... that would be.... never?
-Z-
Really?
Considering said move would be political suicide, that's a no brainer.

However that doesn't stop parties from favoring softer sentences for criminals and treatment of Fred that is less harsh than the treatment favored by a different political party.

You're not listening to me, the Canadian prison population is not enough to matter. Not really. They would never lets say build a voting block. Not only is it very unlikely for them to organize in this fashion. There is not enough of them to do it.Looking at the last American election, every votes counts.

Let's all remember the last time a party ran on the platform: "Shorter sentances for rapists and murderers" shall we?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.... that would be.... never?
-Z-
Really?
Considering said move would be political suicide, that's a no brainer.

However that doesn't stop parties from favoring softer sentences for criminals and treatment of Fred that is less harsh than the treatment favored by a different political party.

You're not listening to me, the Canadian prison population is not enough to matter. Not really. They would never lets say build a voting block. Not only is it very unlikely for them to organize in this fashion. There is not enough of them to do it.Looking at the last American election, every votes counts.

Canadian elections are not very much like American ones.. that is why a lot of us Canadians take such interest in your circus..lol It's just more exciting.. it's like a big budget movie for months. Canadian politics is much more sane and stable (usually)

I would much prefer that criminals get to vote than having people use criminal activities to REMOVE LEGAL voters from voting lists as what happened in Florida.

That bears repeating! Classic... :)

I ask again; Would you agree that someone who has committed treason against Canada be allowed to vote in the elections?

Treason is bullshit. It is much more commonly applied against enemies of the governement rather than enemies of the people (I make a distinction)

I would have no problem with someone who had commited treason voting. You put way too much stock in a single meaningless vote. It is the act of doing so, not the vote itself that is important. Voting for "Traitors" can only do good, I dont see how its bad.

This is a load... Throughout the western world, prisoners are coddled. It's called the social contract people. You give up bits of your rights so the government can keep you safe and provide services. Being a criminal violates this contract, so, the government should take away all of your rights until you are allowed to renew the agreement.

There is no contract. The deal is you make money and spend it. Thats about it.

This is a load... Throughout the western world, prisoners are coddled. It's called the social contract people. You give up bits of your rights so the government can keep you safe and provide services. Being a criminal violates this contract, so, the government should take away all of your rights until you are allowed to renew the agreement.

And that, I guess, is the basis of the theory whereby torturing prisoners seems like a fun thing to do!


Newsflash: Nobody in any country that I can think of in the western world is ever considered deemed to have ALL of their rights taken from them. Nor is the concept of an implied "contract" which is made effective by the simple act of being born a terribly valid position either.

You have completely failed to provide any arguement as to why removing this right of citizenship is a worthwhile punishment as compared to the potential benefit when used as part of a rehabilitation program. Except for a very few cases, this criminal WILL get out. He WILL be allowed to vote again. Why not use the election as a tool to get the incarcerated more interested in their civic responsabilities instead of further marginalizing them? What could it possibly hurt as compared to what you might gain?

There are to sides to what prison is supposed to accomplish. Punishment and rehabilitation. I think that the punishment aspect of disallowing the prisoner to vote is far outwieghed by the potential benefits if used as part of a lesson in civic responsability.


-Z-

This is a load... Throughout the western world, prisoners are coddled. It's called the social contract people. You give up bits of your rights so the government can keep you safe and provide services. Being a criminal violates this contract, so, the government should take away all of your rights until you are allowed to renew the agreement.

And that, I guess, is the basis of the theory whereby torturing prisoners seems like a fun thing to do!


Newsflash: Nobody in any country that I can think of in the western world is ever considered deemed to have ALL of their rights taken from them. Nor is the concept of an implied "contract" which is made effective by the simple act of being born a terribly valid position either.

You have completely failed to provide any arguement as to why removing this right of citizenship is a worthwhile punishment as compared to the potential benefit when used as part of a rehabilitation program. Except for a very few cases, this criminal WILL get out. He WILL be allowed to vote again. Why not use the election as a tool to get the incarcerated more interested in their civic responsabilities instead of further marginalizing them? What could it possibly hurt as compared to what you might gain?

There are to sides to what prison is supposed to accomplish. Punishment and rehabilitation. I think that the punishment aspect of disallowing the prisoner to vote is far outwieghed by the potential benefits if used as part of a lesson in civic responsability.


-Z-

Zeppistan...in my brieft time here, I've come to regard you as one of those highly intelligent posters who typically can back up what he preaches, but in this case..I think you're living in the clouds...that if a prisoner has the ability to vote it somehow will make this criminal have an epiphany and say "Oh my gosh..I'm going to be a good citizen now because I can vote and change the world for the better"...

I say voting is a priviledge...just like driving a car...it should be earned, not a given...a prisoner needs to convince me that he/she has earned that priviledge..since apparently they had no respect for the Law to get into prison..you now would allow them to exercise a priviledge exercised by law-abiding citizens?....Perhaps your wife stephistan is correct in that Canada does not have the prison population that the US does..but we have over 1 million incarcerated in US prisons..it is US policy to forbid felons from voting..now...those in country or city jails of course are usually there for misdemeanors and therefore no such privledge is taken away...but as I say...it should be something that a criminal should have to convince me..a law-abiding citizen that they should rate being able to vote again.

People should have all their rights taken away in prison. That's why it's prison. If we actually stripped people of their rights while they were incarcerated, people might think twice about committing crimes.

Zeppistan...in my brieft time here, I've come to regard you as one of those highly intelligent posters who typically can back up what he preaches, but in this case..I think you're living in the clouds...that if a prisoner has the ability to vote it somehow will make this criminal have an epiphany and say "Oh my gosh..I'm going to be a good citizen now because I can vote and change the world for the better"...

I say voting is a priviledge...just like driving a car...it should be earned, not a given...a prisoner needs to convince me that he/she has earned that priviledge..since apparently they had no respect for the Law to get into prison..you now would allow them to exercise a priviledge exercised by law-abiding citizens?....Perhaps your wife stephistan is correct in that Canada does not have the prison population that the US does..but we have over 1 million incarcerated in US prisons..it is US policy to forbid felons from voting..now...those in country or city jails of course are usually there for misdemeanors and therefore no such privledge is taken away...but as I say...it should be something that a criminal should have to convince me..a law-abiding citizen that they should rate being able to vote again.

Ummm, you are overdoing it with the epiphany stuff. But I get your point - I just don't happen to agree with it.

Now let's be clear. Voting is NOT a priviledge. It is a right. If it were in any way similar to your example of driving a car then we would force people to test for qualifications before allowing them to vote. Can you imagine how governments could turn that into a way of disenfranchising people of opposite opinions?

And since when do you think that there is any correlation between a person being in jail because maybe they got drunk and got into a bar fight and wound up with an assault charge, and their ability to understand issues affecting the lives of themselves and their families? Hell - maybe the fight was about politics and this persone is far better equiped to vote intelligently instead of some people that vote without ever picking up a newspaper or studying the platforms. What is the correleation between most crimes and voting? And what exactly do they have to convince you of? You think that them proving that they are capable of deciding which parties platform related to health care and education they prefer gives any sort of indication that they won't get drunk and into another bar fight next month?

I mean really? How does the person convince you of this? By completing a sentance? That proved they learned something?

You already state that in the US this practice is done only at a certain severity of crime. I should also point out, as I have before, that this is NOT consistantly applied. It is done at the state level, and not all states disenfrachise felons in the same way. Indeed, only 13 states continue to disenfranchise felons after they have served their terms - so how did the felon in Vermont "convince you" that he would vote correctly but the felon in Florida did not? And what rates as a felony may differ from state to state also, so people commiting a crime convince you of their ability to vote based on the geography of the crime?.

And how does the murderer who gets the plea to turn on his partner convince you faster through his sentance reduction than his partner does? Or a person pleads down to a misdemeanor to avoid a trial has convinced you of his voting ability as compared to if the DA refused to deal?

I just don't buy that. I mean, if you want to punish the person in this way just say so, but lets be honest about it and call it that. Because there will never be any formal proces by which ex-cons will ever "convince" you of their ability to vote to your satisfaction.

I feel that voting is a right not to be stripped away in an inconsistent manner by the judiciary. You disagree.

I also feel that prisons could build a bit of a civics class around the election to try and get some people thinking about things in a larger picture than maybe they had before. That would be nice, but even without that I still feel that voting is a right not to be touched. Ever.


-Z-

People should have all their rights taken away in prison. That's why it's prison. If we actually stripped people of their rights while they were incarcerated, people might think twice about committing crimes.

You know, there has not even been a proven demonstration that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.

Somehow I don't think that taking away voting rights will suceed where the threat of killing them will not.

Zeppistan...in my brieft time here, I've come to regard you as one of those highly intelligent posters who typically can back up what he preaches, but in this case..I think you're living in the clouds...that if a prisoner has the ability to vote it somehow will make this criminal have an epiphany and say "Oh my gosh..I'm going to be a good citizen now because I can vote and change the world for the better"...

I say voting is a priviledge...just like driving a car...it should be earned, not a given...a prisoner needs to convince me that he/she has earned that priviledge..since apparently they had no respect for the Law to get into prison..you now would allow them to exercise a priviledge exercised by law-abiding citizens?....Perhaps your wife stephistan is correct in that Canada does not have the prison population that the US does..but we have over 1 million incarcerated in US prisons..it is US policy to forbid felons from voting..now...those in country or city jails of course are usually there for misdemeanors and therefore no such privledge is taken away...but as I say...it should be something that a criminal should have to convince me..a law-abiding citizen that they should rate being able to vote again.

Ummm, you are overdoing it with the epiphany stuff. But I get your point - I just don't happen to agree with it.

Now let's be clear. Voting is NOT a priviledge. It is a right. If it were in any way similar to your example of driving a car then we would force people to test for qualifications before allowing them to vote. Can you imagine how governments could turn that into a way of disenfranchising people of opposite opinions?

And since when do you think that there is any correlation between a person being in jail because maybe they got drunk and got into a bar fight and wound up with an assault charge, and their ability to understand issues affecting the lives of themselves and their families? Hell - maybe the fight was about politics and this persone is far better equiped to vote intelligently instead of some people that vote without ever picking up a newspaper or studying the platforms. What is the correleation between most crimes and voting? And what exactly do they have to convince you of? You think that them proving that they are capable of deciding which parties platform related to health care and education they prefer gives any sort of indication that they won't get drunk and into another bar fight next month?

I mean really? How does the person convince you of this? By completing a sentance? That proved they learned something?

You already state that in the US this practice is done only at a certain severity of crime. I should also point out, as I have before, that this is NOT consistantly applied. It is done at the state level, and not all states disenfrachise felons in the same way. Indeed, only 13 states continue to disenfranchise felons after they have served their terms - so how did the felon in Vermont "convince you" that he would vote correctly but the felon in Florida did not? And what rates as a felony may differ from state to state also, so people commiting a crime convince you of their ability to vote based on the geography of the crime?.

And how does the murderer who gets the plea to turn on his partner convince you faster through his sentance reduction than his partner does? Or a person pleads down to a misdemeanor to avoid a trial has convinced you of his voting ability as compared to if the DA refused to deal?

I just don't buy that. I mean, if you want to punish the person in this way just say so, but lets be honest about it and call it that. Because there will never be any formal proces by which ex-cons will ever "convince" you of their ability to vote to your satisfaction.

I feel that voting is a right not to be stripped away in an inconsistent manner by the judiciary. You disagree.

I also feel that prisons could build a bit of a civics class around the election to try and get some people thinking about things in a larger picture than maybe they had before. That would be nice, but even without that I still feel that voting is a right not to be touched. Ever.


-Z-

As I said..I believe you to be living in the clouds..you speak more from a philosophical approach..I get that...and I wish the consistency with felons having their voting rights stripped was universally applied but that would be infringing on the sovereignity of the individual state..

As for convincing me..it's easy enough..live your life free of crime, convince me..John Q. Public that you are not going to go back to drug dealing, stealing, rape, assault and battery, that you are going to adhere to the Laws of this country..etc..If you're on parole..then make yourself a better citizen then when you went in..but while you are in Zep..I don't believe they should have the right to vote..they sure as heck didn't adered to the rule of civilized society when out..why should they get it while in?

Once there out..that is an entirely different matter and thread..but we are talking bout prisoners who are still currently serving terms.

I even have a few "family" friends serving time in Federal prison up in Ossining....but I wouldn't want them to be able to vote until they are out, but since they are felons no..I don't believe they should have the benefits of a society they choose not to be part of.

As for convincing me..it's easy enough..live your life free of crime, convince me..John Q. Public that you are not going to go back to drug dealing, stealing, rape, assault and battery, that you are going to adhere to the Laws of this country..etc..If you're on parole..then make yourself a better citizen then when you went in..but while you are in Zep..I don't believe they should have the right to vote..they sure as heck didn't adered to the rule of civilized society when out..why should they get it while in?

Once there out..that is an entirely different matter and thread..but we are talking bout prisoners who are still currently serving terms.

I even have a few "family" friends serving time in Federal prison up in Ossining....but I wouldn't want them to be able to vote until they are out, but since they are felons no..I don't believe they should have the benefits of a society they choose not to be part of.


For information purposes: The laws regarding felony disenfranchisement in the US:

Of the 50 States plus The District of Columbia:

47 disenfranchize felons in prison, 4 do not.
29 continue to disenfranchise during probation
32 continue to disenfranchise while on parole
15 have (or have had) some form of permanent disenfranchisement on the books, although some have lapsed and some require a second conviction. In the cases where the rules have changed to remove permanent disenfrachisement,Tennessee and Washington did not grandfather the change so those convicted prior to 86 and 84 respectively will never have their rights returned while those convicted after will.

Texas, naturally, adds another dimension in that it continues to disenfranchise peole after they have served their full term until two years after the ending date of their time, parole, or probation.


For the record, do you advocate this for all prisoners? Or just felons? First remember that Canada does not really have that same distinction, and then ask yourself at what point are you convinced that a criminal will not re-offend? Like I said - how do they convince you? Clearly they won't reoffend a B&E while in prison, so you have to wait until they are released. Yet you have stated that you think the release prisoners should be allowed to vote - but at that point they have not had the chance to convince you of anything!

How much convincing do you need? Let them vote but not have it count - and if they die without reoffending we count their ballots retroactively? OK - I'm being silly . Just trying to show how the concept that they will "convince you" of their ability to vote is farfetched.


You are using disenfranchisement as a punishment, but still nobody has clearly shown any correlation between criminal activity and the ability to vote intelligently. I respect that you feel that way, however I do not think this is the right thing to do. Not for us anyway.

-Z-

Would you agree that someone who has committed treason against Canada be allowed to vote in the elections?

I think the last time Canada saw a case of "treason" was when Wayne Gretzky defected from The Edmonton Oilers to the Los Angeles Kings.

Seriously, I doubt that there's currently a single prisoner in jail here for treason. I'd be surprised if there's even been a trial for that since perhaps the 1950s. And I can't imagine a scenario where such a conviction could ever happen in future - unless in later years we end up putting Steven Harper on trial for it. :D

I think that some of Chretien's former people would be more treasonist to Canada than Harper, giving money to stupid LaFleur Communications. I man, i'd never even heard of that company before this. The Liberals will pay this election and they deserve to, even though I'm campaigning for Ralph Goodale this election, I just want him to be re-elected.

I'm campaigning for Ralph Goodale this election, I just want him to be re-elected.

Ralph's a good man. Does his riding encompass all of Saskatoon or just the East side? And do think he'll be re-elected?

I suppose a better question would be:
Should one get the right to vote simply by birth?
Or should one have to earn the right to vote by serving the greater good?
[The R.A.H. method, whereby one earns citizenship by serving their country (service branches including, but not limited to: military, medical and social services)]


Of course, non-enfranchised people have the same civil rights, just not voting.

Actually Mr. Goodale's riding is Regina-Wascana in Southeast Regina. Both Saskatoon and Regina have 4 ridings in them, the Conservatives have all 4 in Saskatoon, in Regina, Independent Larry Spencer has one, there are 2 NDPers and Mr. Goodale. I perosnally think he will win because people still see him as a valued member of the community and a great ambassador in Ottawa for Saskatchewan. He's running against 2 people knew to politics, a 22 year old university student for the NDP and a former pastor for the Conservatives. Who do you think will (hint: Mr. Goodale)?