Two questions

[andrewducker]

1) Do many other countries that aren't horrible repressive regimes (like the USA) remove the ability to vote from people in prison? Is the UK normal or abnormal in this respect?

1) Do many other countries that aren't horrible repressive regimes have something equating to Control Orders, or are we unusual in thinking that it's ok to punish people who haven't been found guilty by a jury of their peers?

Comments

[cheekbones3]

I'm not aware of many others at all (certainly in western Europe) that remove the vote from prisoners.

[birguslatro]

What they're up to down here...

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/a/a/f/00DBHOH_BILL9745_1-Electoral-Disqualification-of-Sentenced-Prisoners.htm

Start here... perhaps, for what other countries do.

It seems that when countries get a government with an inclination to suck up to the US, their laws start to mimic the US's laws as well.

Anyone who doesn't think there's something wrong of late with the US should look at the incarceration graph here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

The prisoner's vote would be quite a large one!

So, why have so many turned to crime in the US since Ronald Reagan came to power?

[errolwi.livejournal.com]

There is a useful summary in this submission to NZ's Bill.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/06/electoral_disqualification_of_convicted_prisoners_bill_submission.html

Overseas exceptions to suffrage:

- Amongst the democratic countries, there is no clear policy or threshold at which those convicted of crimes lose or do not lose their right to vote.
- Some counties have no disqualification at all. Even the worst serial killers and gang rapists are allowed to vote from prison, despite serving a life sentence.
- Other countries (or states within countries) have laws which prohibit not only current prisoners from voting, but maintains a ban on voting, even after they have been released
- Some countries, like Australia and currently New Zealand, have a ban which only applies for sentences of three years or more.
- Countries which have a total ban on prisoners voting are the United Kingdom, Ireland (de facto), Luxembourg, Estonia, Romania, Russia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Also 48 of the 50 states of the United States (covering 99.4% of the population) ban prisoners from voting.

[ladysisyphus.livejournal.com]

Are you saying the US is or isn't a horrible repressive regime? Either way, if you get convicted of a felony here, not only are you not allowed to vote in prison, I'm pretty sure you're never allowed to vote again.

[andrewducker]

I believe that's a state by state thing (but mostly true).

[andrewducker]

And, for the purposes of question one, definitely is :->

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

I read it as saying the US is a horribly repressive regime, which is certainly how it appears to me.
Actually, whether felons can vote varies by State, with the worst being as you describe while the best allow voting from prison, with degrees in between: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

[mb2u]

I interpreted it to mean countries that are not horrible repressive regimes, such as the US. Despite the bleatings of the Tea Party, Fox News and the Fundamentalist Right, America is far from a repressive regime.

To answer the questions:

1-Prisoners are not allowed to vote while they are incarcerated. Each state has its own rules regarding regaining voting rights. Usually, if you were convicted of a non-violent or non-drug related felony you can regain your voting rights. Otherwise, you can't.

2-There are no laws similar to the Control Orders applying to civilians. You can't be detained indefinitely; you may be held until you are charged with a crime but it must happen within a reasonable (72 hours normally) period.

However, enemy combatants and/or people detained in areas of conflict (like Iraq and Afghanistan) are subject to non-judicial incarceration-ie, Guantanamo. These prisoners are considered terrorists with no rights under American criminal law. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that such prisoners do have some rights, though the military and Executive Branch have been given lots of leeway in applying them...

not repressive?

[fjm.livejournal.com]

A woman in Ohio has recently been jailed for giving her children's father's address in order to get them into a better school district. As if that wasn't enough, because she is now a convicted felon, she will not be allowed to continue her training as a teacher.

See here

And then there is the case of Bradley Manning.

Mind you, I'm not excusing the UK. Our government seems to be haggling over how far back in the time machine we need to go. The latest, "let's get rid of control orders over people who have never even been charged with a crime, and replace them with control orders over people who have never even been charged with a crime..." puts us right up there with the Ancien Regime.

Re: not repressive?

[mb2u]

Your first example isn't about governmental repression but overreaction. The woman did commit a crime, but the punishment was out of line.

Neither is the second, as despicable as his treatment as been. Manning was arrested for admitting to someone (who turned him into the authorities) that he was the source of the Wikileaks files. The files were classified information and his giving them to Wikileaks was a criminal act. As a member of the Army, he's being charged under military law and held in a military jail. I do believe totally that his treatment IN custody is a violation of human rights; his arrest for breaking the law is not.

IMHO, America is not a repressive regime. You still have far more rights here than in a place like Iran, China, North Korea, etc. I do think that there is a climate of fear here-fueled by Republican and Tea Party rhetoric-that has changed debate in this country. But we haven't reached the point where people are being taken off the streets for having differing opinions from the government.

At least, not yet.

[laplor.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, prisoners in Canada can vote.

IMO, the right to vote is one that should NOT be taken from anyone for any reason.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

Yes absolutely. I think it's shocking that prisoners can't vote - all you need to do is arrest a bunch of people before an election. I realise this would be difficult to do under the current way the UK works, but there should be no possibility to be able to. There are a myriad of political reasons why people may be imprisoned, so they should retain a say.

For democracy to stand a bat in hell's chance of working, voting must be available and compulsory to everyone with clear access and education as to how you might want to make a voting choice - eg how to access manifestos - maybe even classes in school on how to find out policies, how the parliament works etc.

Oh and the option to abstain, with some kind of action available if there was a majority abstention.

IMHO etc...

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

IIRC it's only convicted prisoners who can't vote - remand prisoners can. So you'd have to arrest and convict a bunch of people before an election.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

I don't have any problem with prisoners not being able to vote, they have deliberately put themselves outside of civil society and therefore considered to have forfeited some rights (and I think most people would say that freedom is a more important right than voting.) It also obviously only makes sense for prisoners who have received tariffs greater than the term of the election they would be voting in.

What is absolutely shocking is the idea that ex-prisoners should be considered to have forfeited their vote after they have served their sentence as I understand happens in the US.

[alextfish.livejournal.com]

I suspect most prisoners wouldn't consider themselves to have "put themselves outside of civil society". E.g. most people who habitually speed would still feel entitled to police protection, fire service, NHS etc. Yet speeding can get you jail time. Or to choose an even more socially acceptable option, how many people you know have never broken the letter of copyright law? Never downloaded an MP3, or saved an image off the internet without knowing its copyright status?

Sadly "law abiding" is a continuum, and there are extremely few people at the 100.0% end. Society is made up of people who "mostly" obey the laws, and feel that the laws should be obeyed, but can't live up to our own standards. So I'd be wary of removing the right to vote from some subset of lawbreakers.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

This doesn't seem to have much relation to what I said. You very rarely go to prison for speeding or copyright infringement. I doubt if you ever go to prison for those crimes for longer than the term of an election.

You say you'd be wary of removing the right to vote from some subset of lawbreakers but why wouldn't you also be wary of removing the right to freedom from some subset of lawbreakers? I certainly don't think either decision should be taken lightly.

But you do obliquely raise a point that I would agree with: far fewer people should go to prison.