Who should be allowed to vote?

[Hugo]

Criminals are punished for crimes by being stripped of their civil liberties.

As a citizen, you have the right to live, work and travel where you want to, or where you are able to, and do what you want, within the confines of the law. Criminals do not have that. It is their punishment. They must stay in a specific place, for a specific time, and do exactly as they are told to by another human being.

Criminals have "opted out" of our society by breaking our laws and violating the rights we assign to our citizens. They have indicated that they no longer wish to be a part of our society. If that is the case, why would we continue to give them the benefits of our society?

[bobocop]

The discussion wasn't about extreme cases, it was for minor offenses.  Let's try it this way...

Agreed...but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Should only B be denied the vote because they opt for prison (not being able to pay the fine)?

Which way, and why?

I will stand by my contention that if you are in prison as a result of you committing a crime regardless of economic situations, you are ineligible to vote. 'B' who committed a crime (and could not afford to pay the fine) had a disregard for society's laws. If you are in jail, you are painted with the same brush as the rest of the inmates. If we are removing privileges due to economic circumstances, do not commit the crime.

I get your stance Antboy but I don't believe extreme cases should be allowed the same rights that we do. If that means that some criminals are treated unfairly as a result of economics, I believe a greater good is achieved.

[CanadaRocks]

Criminals have "opted out" of our society by breaking our laws and violating the rights we assign to our citizens

Remember the recent scandal over the flag stuff in quebec? There were no jail sentences as I recall. Remember all the times People have evaded jail as they live above the law? How many examples can you find of where our laws have been broken, and merely stepped over as inconveniences?

It would be one thing, if all citizens were equal under the law. It is quite another when they are not.

Just because a Person has violated a law, does not mean that their value to society is at an end.

You yourself, might perhaps go to jail for unpaid parking tickets if you collected enough and refused to pay them. Does that mean that you then would have no further contribution worthy of societies notice?

People do go to jail to pay for crimes, but when we take away their vote, it is society itself that does the paying ..again.

[Bionic Antboy]

I will stand by my contention that if you are in prison as a result of you committing a crime regardless of economic situations, you are ineligible to vote. 'B' who committed a crime (and could not afford to pay the fine) had a disregard for society's laws. If you are in jail, you are painted with the same brush as the rest of the inmates. If we are removing privileges due to economic circumstances, do not commit the crime.

I get your stance Antboy but I don't believe extreme cases should be allowed the same rights that we do. If that means that some criminals are treated unfairly as a result of economics, I believe a greater good is achieved.

See, that's the beginning of the slippery slope...

If the injustice done to society is the same, and the only difference is that one COULD afford the fine, and the other couldn't, we are then stripping away people's right to vote based solely on economic status. One should not be afforded a more lenient sentence based on how much money they have in their bank account.

That kind of imbalance already exists in the justice system.

As for the extreme cases, such as Olsen, I'm split on my view as to voting rights. It would befit the heinousness of the crime, and morally I can understand why many would feel that way. I do myself.

I also see the danger of starting that process, as it could lead to more and more restrictions.

[August1991]

Criminals have "opted out" of our society by breaking our laws and violating the rights we assign to our citizens. They have indicated that they no longer wish to be a part of our society. If that is the case, why would we continue to give them the benefits of our society?

Benefits? We give them food, medical care, a decent place to sleep, the chance to watch TV and read newspapers and books. (In prisons in other countries, this is not the case. Family must provide this.)

The issue here is where to draw the line. The right to vote is such a minor deal that it strikes me as irrelevant. I'd opt on the side of "reform" aspect of incarceration for this particular right; but if Harper wants to remove it, so be it.

This interesting G&M piece changed my opinion on a truly minor issue.

[Hugo]

Remember the recent scandal over the flag stuff in quebec? There were no jail sentences as I recall.

I personally believe that only violent criminals should go to jail. Punishment for white-collar crime should consist of supervision/house arrest and fines. There's no need to waste tens of thousands a year on these people.

If that is done, then we can say that those in jail are those who have violated the most sacred of our rights: the right to life and security of person. I don't think that those people deserve to be allowed a vote. If they are considered rehabilitated enough to be released (i.e. one can honestly state that they do not believe they will re-offend), give them the vote back.

[Bionic Antboy]

The issue here is where to draw the line. The right to vote is such a minor deal that it strikes me as irrelevant. I'd opt on the side of "reform" aspect of incarceration for this particular right; but if Harper wants to remove it, so be it.

This interesting G&M piece changed my opinion on a truly minor issue.

Interesting article. Thanks for the link...

[August1991]

Punishment for white-collar crime should consist of supervision/house arrest and fines.

I strongly disagree. The fear of going to jail is a great deterrent to illegal activities of all sort, not just violent crime.

If only house arrest and fines were imposed, there would be more embezzlers. The sight of Michael Milliken in prison orange made many people think twice.

[Bionic Antboy]

I personally believe that only violent criminals should go to jail. Punishment for white-collar crime should consist of supervision/house arrest and fines. There's no need to waste tens of thousands a year on these people.

If that is done, then we can say that those in jail are those who have violated the most sacred of our rights: the right to life and security of person. I don't think that those people deserve to be allowed a vote. If they are considered rehabilitated enough to be released (i.e. one can honestly state that they do not believe they will re-offend), give them the vote back.

So you're saying that a white collar criminal who bilks people out of millions SHOULDN'T go to prison?

Strikes me as more of a "Let the punishment suit the criminal's tax bracket" as opposed to "punishment suit the crime" scenario.

[Hugo]

I do see your point, August, and perhaps we can find common ground. I can agree that big-time embezzlers probably deserve jail, and that it would be a good deterrent, however, I don't really wish to see Canadian jails swelled with working-class and middle-class people who didn't pay their taxes, or drove with an expired driving license or expired plates, and so forth.

[Hugo]

I believe that the whole point of jail is to exclude people from society, so that they may have no physical contact with innocent people lest they harm them. If somebody won't harm a person physically, why do that?

There are other ways to prevent reoccurrence of white-collar crime. Seize all the assets of an embezzler and forbid him to hold any executive position again, for example. For a hacker or virus writer, once again, fine him, seize his computer equipment and forbid him to own any more. State that the conditions of his not being imprisoned include random spot checks of his home by police to ensure he has not obtained more computer equipment. It would be a lot cheaper than jail.

[Hawk]

I believe that the whole point of jail is to exclude people from society, so that they may have no physical contact with innocent people lest they harm them. If somebody won't harm a person physically, why do that?

There are other ways to prevent reoccurrence of white-collar crime. Seize all the assets of an embezzler and forbid him to hold any executive position again, for example. For a hacker or virus writer, once again, fine him, seize his computer equipment and forbid him to own any more. State that the conditions of his not being imprisoned include random spot checks of his home by police to ensure he has not obtained more computer equipment. It would be a lot cheaper than jail.

No the whole point of jail is a deterrent, a punishment, something you want to avoid. Hence if you take away the deterrent or punishment you increase the urge to disobey the rule.

It has nothing to do with physical harm, although I believe physical harm should be treated with far more severity. For example, if someone rapes and kills women I believe that man should be executed, thats right capital punishment. In the far past innocent people were killed yes, but with DNA and all the other miracles of technology wrongly convicting criminals basically never happens... especially if it involves taking other people's lives.

White collar crime should be treated as a robbery, since that is exactly what it is. I like your idea of banning him from ever being an executive again since that would deter almost anyone that wanted a career =p But when it comes to the hacker/virus writer that idea flops, because simply put a hacker/virus writer could use public computers, friend's computers, anyone's computers and do just what he was convicted for. It is far to insecure, and not to mention he could very well purchase his own and simply hide it when the cops show up at the door (laptops are easy to hide)

[Hugo]

But when it comes to the hacker/virus writer that idea flops, because simply put a hacker/virus writer could use public computers, friend's computers, anyone's computers and do just what he was convicted for. It is far to insecure, and not to mention he could very well purchase his own and simply hide it when the cops show up at the door (laptops are easy to hide)

I'm sure you could get around that. If you want, insist he wears an electronic tag or has one implanted and make sure he only goes home or to work. And if you can't hide a bag of weed from a police search, you certainly can't hide a laptop. They can find anything.

No the whole point of jail is a deterrent, a punishment, something you want to avoid.

Partially. But you can deter or punish without imprisoning, and if the punishment is good, it will be a deterrent too.

For example, if someone rapes and kills women I believe that man should be executed, thats right capital punishment.

I don't go for that. I don't want anybody's blood on my hands for any reason, no matter if they're a child-rapist and murderer. It's partially ethical and partially because of my religious beliefs.

[udawg]

If anyone mentions "slippery slope" one more time....

I do think that excluding prisoners from the vote is a good idea. During the period of their incarceration, they do not have the normal rights of a citizen. You could say they have conditional citizenship, because it's not completely revoked, merely reduced. Treat it just like probational driver's licenses: until they have completed a certain amount of (re)training, they do not get the same rights as a full citizen.

Disallowing voting priveleges is not a huge step further. When you break the laws of our country, you should not be allowed to have input on what those laws ARE. Once your term of incarceration is up, however, your normal rights are reinstated, and you can vote and try to change those laws if you wish.

Welfare is, however, a different issue. These citizens have done nothing wrong, they are simply victims of the economy. By allowing people on welfare to vote, we are allowing them to decide for themselves what the best method to help them is. If we didn't allow them to vote, I could all to easily see them getting ignored by the voting public and relegated even further to the margins and shadows of society.

Addressing the issue of fines vs. jail time, I think that if a judge orders a fine to be paid, voting rights should remain, even if the person is unable to pay the fine and must serve time in leui of the fine. If the judge orders jail time, with no option for a fine, then the voting rights are taken away. I think this is a fairly simple solution.

[Black Dog]

Example. Say I pay $25,000 in taxes every year. My brother who is chain smoking, alcoholic bum on welfare, has never contributed anything. I get one vote. He gets one vote. I will vote for the party I consider will make the most efficient use of my money without waste or theft. He will vote for whoever promises to give him more welfare money, and improve conditions in his public housing unit.

I like it, but it doesn't go far enough. Someone pays $50,000 a year in taxes should get two votes, $100,000/ year: four votes and so on....

Of course I'm kidding. What a dumbass idea.

I strongly disagree. The fear of going to jail is a great deterrent to illegal activities of all sort, not just violent crime.

If fear of jail were an actual deterrent, then the nations with the largest prison populations should have the lowest crime rates. That is not the case. Look at the States, which has a more people incarcerated per capita than any other. By your rationale, it shoul dbe a crime free paradise. Obviously, thet's not the case. Prison is primarily punishment, nominally as a venue for rehabilitation, but quite useless as a deterrent.

[Bionic Antboy]

I strongly disagree. The fear of going to jail is a great deterrent to illegal activities of all sort, not just violent crime.

If fear of jail were an actual deterrent, then the nations with the largest prison populations should have the lowest crime rates. That is not the case. Look at the States, which has a more people incarcerated per capita than any other. By your rationale, it shoul dbe a crime free paradise. Obviously, thet's not the case. Prison is primarily punishment, nominally as a venue for rehabilitation, but quite useless as a deterrent.

There are a number of other factors to look at, on a nation by nation basis, include what constitutes a jailable offense, and the length ot sentence.

In the case of the States, there are many that want prison reform and repealing of the "Three Strikes" law in because it's causing the prison population to swell with people unjustly imprisoned for 25-life for relatively minor offenses.

One early case of the "Three Strikes" law was the case of a man who was busted for possession of pot, and sentenced to 25 years. His previous offenses were 1) possession a few years earlier, and 2) stealing $20 from his grandfather's wallet 15 years earlier (his grandfather pressed charges to teach him a lesson).

This isn't an isolated case, either. Just one article...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/328/st...rikingout.shtml

There's tons of analysis on those topics online, pro and con.

[noelandmero]

All these disscusion are assuming jail and prison are the same thing and they are not. You have always been able to vote if you were in jail. As jail is for sentences under 365 days and for people who can't pay fines. Jail is were the two farmers previously disscused go. Prison on the other hand is for true criminals with sentences over a year, multiple offenses, murder, rape ect. These people have with out a doubt given up there right to vote.

[Reverend Blair]

I've worked with guys who had done time in Stoney Mountain and the Prince Albert pen, August. They weren't rapists and murderers, they were mixed up kids with drug problems. Two of them are quite involved with the native rights movement now and one has gone to school to become a lawyer so he could fight against wrongful imprisonment not because he wasn't guilty but because he met a couple of people who weren't.

We tend to assume the worst about anybody who has gone to prison, but most are intelligent human beings who made some bad choices. They have valid concerns based on their experiences. They have seen more than a lot of people ever will. Excluding them from voting is doing them and out country an injustice.

As for guys like Clifford Olsen...you could take all of the truly violent offenders in Canada, the special cases that people like to bring up to raise emotion, and put them them in a single riding and they could not elect a candidate. Most prisoners are not special cases.

As a society we'd likely be better off

[August1991]

Look at the States, which has a more people incarcerated per capita than any other. By your rationale, it shoul dbe a crime free paradise.

BD, the US is safer compared to the UK and indeed to many other countries. The murder rate in Toronto is now higher than New York City.

Check this OECD data in Excel format. or you can see this thorough report comparing crime in the US and England.

Prison is primarily punishment, nominally as a venue for rehabilitation, but quite useless as a deterrent.

How is punishment any different really from deterrent? In different societies, punishment is meted out in different ways. But its purpose is to deter bad behaviour.

Does it work? Obviously not perfectly. The risk of getting caught and the chance of avoiding punishment even if caught play a part.

More broadly BD, if you think the threat of prison doesn't deter illegal activity then you are really arguing that all criminals are lunatics; that is, they don't think at all.

I've worked with guys who had done time in Stoney Mountain and the Prince Albert pen, August. They weren't rapists and murderers, they were mixed up kids with drug problems.

I don't disagree with you Rev, and I too am inclined to let them have the vote. Did you read the G&M article above?

But don't forget: We don't put people in prison to punish them as such. We put them in prison as a warning to others of what happens if you break the law.

All these disscusion are assuming jail and prison are the same thing and they are not. You have always been able to vote if you were in jail. As jail is for sentences under 365 days and for people who can't pay fines.

Good but minor point. I thought sentences of less than two years are served in provincial prisons, two years or more in federal penitentiaries and jails are municipal. Anyone know?

[Reverend Blair]

Two years less a day is the sentence given when they don't think somebody should have to go to a federal pen. Beyond that I'm not sure but the city jail here seems to be for holding people until their bail hearing or trial. Convicted offenders, even for minor offences, go to Headingly, the provincial jail.

[udawg]

Hey Rev... where in MB do you live?

As to your good kids in prison (or jail, or whatever word we decided on), they should get their vote back when they get back out. If they're only in for a minor offence, a couple days, a month, odds are they'll be out before the next election. If they're still in when the election is held, well...they broke the law, they lost their right to vote for the period of their incarceration. That's how it should be.

Edited June 23, 2004 by udawg

[Reverend Blair]

I live in Winnipeg, Bill Blaikie's riding.

The guys I worked with who had been in prison were all in Stoney...2 for drugs and one for weapons offenses. All three had previous records for stealing cars, shop-lifting, etc... They were all members of native youth gangs. All would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if they had been able to hire their own lawyers instead of having an over-worked, under-experienced lawyer appointed for them.

They had all been through the system as kids. They had all lived on-reserve and in Winnipeg. None of them finished high school before they got into trouble. All were at least partially politically motivated even while in the youth gangs.

All three have straightened themselves out, mostly by quitting the cocaine. All find politics interesting.

I really think that taking their votes away while in prison would be an assault on democracy. Remember, part of the reason they got into the gangs was political. It was party time and peer pressure and all the rest of that, but it was also a chance to act out against a society that had left them out.

[August1991]

If they're still in when the election is held, well...they broke the law, they lost their right to vote for the period of their incarceration. That's how it should be.

I simply don't see a kid deciding not to steal a car because if he's caught, he'll lose his voting rights. It's not a deterrent.

On the other hand, to the extent you believe in reform, I think a prisoner's right to vote might be a positive factor.

All would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if they had been able to hire their own lawyers instead of having an over-worked, under-experienced lawyer appointed for them.

Very true. But this is a complex issue that deserves another thread.

[noelandmero]

All would have likely gotten a lighter sentence if they had been able to hire their own lawyers instead of having an over-worked, under-experienced lawyer appointed for them.

Who cares what lawyer they had they had a lawyer and as the saying goes don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I don't care if you are a hard done to native youth or a rich white kid looking for thrills steal my car and I hope you are in the pen for five years and you had better hope to god I don't catch you stealing it in my drive way because then it is tresspasing as well and I would shoot you with out hesitation so 5 years is getting off light. Quit making excuses for people bad decision should have hard consequences poverty is not an excuse.

[August1991]

I don't care if you are a hard done to native youth or a rich white kid looking for thrills steal my car and I hope you are in the pen for five years

The rich kid won't be. The fact of the matter is, the poor kid gets time, the rich kid's dad gets a bill. Not always, not all the time. It depends on circumstances, or the balance of probablilities.

Your protection against poor kids stealing your car is different from your protection against rich kids stealing your car.