Jonathan Aitken talking rubbish on TV - of course prisoners must have the right to vote - not that it matters. We claim to live in a democracy (which doesn't work). That allows all citizens to choose our government.

That's all citizens - including the vast majority who are uninformed, uneducated, uncaring and simply vote (if they bother to do so) on good hair, teeth and regular smiles.

The British government say no; only citizens that conform to certain rules should vote.

Simply further proof that democracy doesn't work. Vote to join a Union that supports Human Rights; agree to obey the laws passed by it; then refuse to enforce them.

Bonkers.

I disagree. I believe the reasoning of 'forfeiture' (if that is a word) should apply in any 'decent' society.

OK, a democracy should be lenient to the consitutional rules and allow free speach, but for a society to include voting rights to people who have commited criminal acts, then the sentence is like a drugs ban, in my eyes.

Serve it and be punished, and return to voting (or competition) but you can't take part while the sentence is being served..........

I'd always ask the question......what % of prisoners would normally vote if they were not 'inside'? You will argue it makes no odds if they do or don't when they are 'free'?....they have every right not to vote if they don't want to, which goes for all of us.....but I don't see that the a forfeit of a right is a problem considering these rules have been in place 'as a precedence' over time....that is, the rules haven't changed , so i don't see why a pressure group should be able to change them unless there is a defined legal arguement that the UK accepts (and not just compliance with the norm in Europe)

The reason is, Mr Reason, because we are members of the Human Rights legislation and should apply their law. If we decide as a nation to leave the Human Rights system, or change it, fair enough but as long as we're in it, we should obey it and spend our time, energy and monies on more important domestic issues - of which there are hundreds!

If the purpose of prison is partly to rehabilitate, isn't it better for prisoners to take part in society as much as possible?
If we treat people as subhuman we can expect them to behave so.

....and my view is human rights and prisoners having the vote is not a pressing issue to spend massive time and money over debating....so i guess it revolves around 'agreeing to differ on opinion' ?

Human rights are all well and good, but the traffic seems to be all one way where redress to a victim, redress to society or acceptance of the crime seems to get lost in the single, individuals claim to his own rights........and that is the trait of a 'psychopath'.....self interest, me me me, and zero empathy for the victim of their behaviour

I liken it to a child (the human right case) who has a parent (society) wrapped around their finger....and knows how to manipulate the gullible (in a lot of cases) parent into getting their own way.......spilt child syndrome.

After my girlfriend put me on the electoral roll which not happy about. I don't want to be chosen for jury service, now I can vote again for the third time so it swings about roll on 2015. Prisoners right to vote why not, and politicians are crooks anyway ?

I won't vote for Tories ever again, Monster Raving Looney Party had good polices for the elderly so voted for them. Now it's either UKIP or Labour.

Mr Reason wrote:
....and my view is human rights and prisoners having the vote is not a pressing issue to spend massive time and money over debating....so i guess it revolves around 'agreeing to differ on opinion' ?

Human rights are all well and good, but the traffic seems to be all one way where redress to a victim, redress to society or acceptance of the crime seems to get lost in the single, individuals claim to his own rights........and that is the trait of a 'psychopath'.....self interest, me me me, and zero empathy for the victim of their behaviour

I liken it to a child (the human right case) who has a parent (society) wrapped around their finger....and knows how to manipulate the gullible (in a lot of cases) parent into getting their own way.......spilt child syndrome.

Maybe this is because we treat prisoners like children?

Or maybe it is that the 'grown up' prisoners treat society like a playground ?

Every arguement has an equal and opposite view

Mr Reason wrote:
Or maybe it is that the 'grown up' prisoners treat society like a playground ?

Every arguement has an equal and opposite view

Very true.

denying prisoners a vote panders to nastiness and achieves nothing.

Fantastic piece of argument and debate, Hedda mp

State an opinion as fact and expect it to be accepted. Well done

I have to say that this has been an excellent debate! Passionately discussed but discussed rather than argued so well done all posters. As far as my opinion goes I can see both sides of the argument clearly and cannot really choose between the two at present. I agree in principle with Jk when he says that if we are supposed to be adhering to agreed Human rights legislation then we cannot 'pick and choose' what parts of that agreement we conform to. I also believe in restorative justice so can see the sense in allowing prisoners to vote because as someone here said if we treat prisoners as 'subhuman' what incentive is there for them to think differently about the harm they have done to society...

The snag is I also agree with Mr Reason on a number of points. The onus far too often these days is on protecting an offenders human rights when he or she thought nothing of stamping all over his or hers victim/s. Not only this but I also fear the sway the E.U. has upon our parliament these days and as Mr Reason points out these rules have been in place for a good many years its not as if we have recently changed them just to be spiteful...

All in all, its a photo finish subject for me.

Mr Reason wrote:
Fantastic piece of argument and debate, Hedda mp

State an opinion as fact and expect it to be accepted. Well done

Neither rhyme nor reason.

The section is called 'Your Views',he simply stated his view.Where does it say he has to argue/debate it?