2007-01-24 07:12:35 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
yes
2007-01-24 07:18:25 · answer #1 · answered by Pam k 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
From what the media says, a law passed in the 1800s forbade this, for obvious reasons. It depends on what the right and proper debate which should take place in the houses of Commons and Lords,on the repeal of the law,and they alone should have the power to repeal that law. If they agree, then compensation commences from the day of repeal .This should have been applied to many other matters, but has not,also, it would be interesting to know if westminster is again happy to pick up that bill again ,and also the money it will cost all of us if the young lawyer who thinks he may bring it about gets his way.As far as I know, legal aid is to cover legal costs , to obtain justice for people who feel they are in need of legal representation. perhaps it is time to separate the category of applicants. Human rights, to legal and constitutional elements, criminals to criminal lawyers, and also when observing a european law judgement, initiate it only after it has been ascertained that more than 50 percent of member states have done so. I f not, are we simply chasing money needed for cancer patients, children in care, and the education of the under class, which is after all created by a negligent education system.
2007-01-28 03:53:15 · answer #2 · answered by doda 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Their vote could help to install a government whose policy was early prison release. Not that this matters much in the UK, as all the prisons are full.
2007-01-24 07:26:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say no. if they had values they would not be in prison in the first place. prisoner have broken the law, if they have no respect for that how can they be in a position to help make them.
2007-01-24 21:02:55 · answer #4 · answered by pepstar 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is an 'inalienable right' then the answer has got to be yes. You can't have a government that decides who can vote and who can't - otherwise you can't really call it Universal suffrage.
How difficult would it be to give them a postal vote? Not very.
2007-01-24 22:34:13 · answer #5 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Prison is supposed to mean loss of liberties, including personal freedom, otherwise what's the point of going down.
2007-01-24 07:26:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Voters are the ones who must belong to a community; and one belongs to a community if he/she has an economic value, wether it has long term or short term effects. Whatever it is, it must contribute to the being of the community.
Many prisoners nowadays are being productive. They tend to sell crafts and services, therefore contributing to the community.
It must have been YES...
but...
human nature always dictates on us the essence of taking revenge, and this is one of them: to take away their right to vote in order for us to get fair from the flaws they had done.
What do you think? Isn't it a dilemma? :-)
2007-01-24 07:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by thorr02 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No they make the choice to break the law, therefore they choose to loose the right to vote
2007-01-24 07:24:44 · answer #8 · answered by thecat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not. If you are in prison you have been neglecting your responsibilities as a citizen (unless your innocent of course) and you should therefore lose some of socities priviledges.
2007-01-27 05:06:17 · answer #9 · answered by seamer100 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally no I don't think they should have the right to vote why should we let paople who can't follow laws made for everyone have a say in who makes them
2007-01-24 07:20:27 · answer #10 · answered by Forsaken Rose 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not! They have foregone the privilege of voting by breaking the very laws that are made by the Law-makers that we vote in.
2007-01-24 07:26:00 · answer #11 · answered by bilbotheman 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋