Wednesday, 13 May 2015

Prisoners allowed to vote? Why don’t we just give Lindsay Lohan her driver's license back!? Why David Cameron SHOULD abolish the Human Rights Act.

Prisoners allowed to vote? Why don’t we just give Lindsay Lohan her driver's license back!?
Why David Cameron SHOULD abolish the Human Rights Act.


To hear the re-elected conservative government are planning to abolish the Human Rights Act may seem horrifying, like the conservatives are on course to become a fascist dictatorship destroying human rights and liberty and bringing back slavery, torture and discrimination which are all illegal under the Act. However, this is not what it seems:it is part of the conservatives manifesto, yes to abolish the Human Rights Act but also to implement a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. David Cameron is not trying to impede on our human rights, but does however have problems with the Human Rights Act at present.


Under the current Human Rights Act prisoners are legally entitled to vote. David Cameron has stated that the thought of prisoners being able to vote makes him physically sick. I agree with David Cameron, I do not believe that prisoners should be allowed to vote and this is why: If you get too many penalty points on your driver's license or are caught driving under the influence, your driver's license is taken off you for a given period of time.  You are not allowed to drive because you have not respected the rules of the road. You no longer have the same rights as other drivers with licences. Why should it be any different when it comes to offenders of the law? Why should someone who has committed a serious crime or a number of misdemeanors be treated any differently? When one is in prison they are being punished, they have disrespected the law and/or violated the rights and liberty of other citizens. They cannot expect to have the same rights as the citizens who have not. Especially since the law is made by the government which is elected and thus breaking it is ultimately undemocratic. Why should a prisoner be allowed to take part in democracy when they had no respect for it in the first place?


This may be a sensitive issue particularly in Northern Ireland since prisoners here have often claimed in the past to be “political prisoners”. Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams has argued that abolishing the act will be a “scandalous attack” on the Good Friday Agreement. I do understand that people have undertaken criminal acts to be political. The judiciary decides at the time how long the prisoner will serve due to the particular circumstances. However, regardless of the situation a crime is still a crime. There will always be victims. Yes the terrorist acts or “political crimes” the IRA for example undertook may have accomplished something but it still created a lot of victims. Regardless they need punished. If one has taken the life of innocent victims, one should not be complaining that they are unable to vote, when they are alive. Lindsay Lohan can’t expect her driver's license back any time soon, criminals can’t expect the right to vote.


References

18 comments:

  1. There are plenty of people who are currently in prison for non violent crime including drug offenses, copyright violation (sharing songs on the internet) and other ridiculous charges. These are not evil people. Regardless, David Cameron doesnt care about this, the reason he wants to scrap the human rights act is to stifle free speech and to relax rules big businesses have to follow when treating their employees. Who do you think funds the conservatives? (PROTIP: its not anyone who would put there money towards stopping prisoners voting). You are a smart guy Adam but you need to look at what people say and what people want as two separate things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the comment! I'm really surprised/happy that so many people have actually taken an interest in my opinions. I think you have slightly misunderstood part of my argument, I will try and explain this tomorrow or the next day.

      Delete
  2. You have broken a lot of grammatical and spelling 'rules' in this piece of drivel. Surely, by your own brilliant reasoning, you no longer have the right to write?

    Prison should act as a rehabilitative measure, with the long term aim of release back into society. Why should they not have a say in how the society is governed? Government spending affects prisons too.

    When a person goes to jail, they are losing the basic human right of freedom. This isn't enough for you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to take issue with a few of the points you have raised here. When you say a prison is a rehabilitative measure, this is a very flawed modern concept, that can only be partially applied to minor crimes. You may seek to rehabilitate someone convicted of petty theft but not a mass murderer who shows no remorse for their actions. A prison by definition is a building to which people are legally committed as a punishment for a crime or while awaiting trial. So its primary role is punishment not rehabilitation. Likewise a society is a community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. It could be argued that by choosing to break these shared laws criminals have opted to remove themselves from our society. Furthermore by consciously choosing to break society's laws one must question their judgement. Is someone who believes it is beneficial to reject the state really of sound enough mind to contribute to decisions that will affect millions? Government spending may affect these people but they also do not contribute whilst imprisoned, leaving the people they have wronged to pick up the bill for keeping them alive. Finally in many criminal cases the guilty party has breached their victims human rights, I feel they are therefore in no position to protest when one of their own is removed.

      Delete
    2. I could not have put it better myself! Thank-you Mr/Mrs anonymous!

      Delete
  3. I will try and correct the grammatical and spelling errors. The other questions will be answered in further posts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Adam, some very hot topics in this post. I do have to ask what your opinion would be on prisoners who are in jail for drug abuse or manslaughter? Should it be the same across the board that all prisoners don't get to vote or just specific crimes? Also do you have an opinion about "mental" disabilities being allowed to vote or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank-you. This question has been asked by quite a few people now. I hope to address it in my next blog post. I would like to write about "drugs" in another post, but I am not quite sure if I am ready to write about something so controversial just yet... maybe in a week or two.

      Delete
  5. What are your views on FPTP vs proportional representation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not completely sure. I think there are pros and cons to both and it depends on the type of election. I remember studying a comparison of them before. I will need to revise and read up before I come up with a more adequate answer.

      Delete
    2. FPTP is the only fair way. Anything else is imposing restrictions on peoples votes, which defeats the purpose of having a free vote.

      Delete
  6. It'd be interesting to see what research you did to write this incredibly bias and uninformative piece of journalism. You say you will "address" the obvious points you have missed later on. Maybe next time you should thoroughly research the topic before spouting a right wing agenda,

    do your research before you spread the message that this quite obviously wrong thing to do is right.

    here's a little piece to get you started, but you have a lot more reading to do (and for the love of christ put the daily mail down like its an aborted kim kardashian foetus)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/what-is-the-human-rights-act-and-why-does-michael-gove-want-to-scrap-it-10240527.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's very easy to come out with this sort of comment, when you are "anonoymous". I am aware that my views are not the "word of God". I enjoy reading the daily mail, along with other newspapers including the independent and the times. There are a lot well respected journalists who write for the Daily Mail including Liz Jones and Piers Morgan. Also one of my sister's friends writes for the Daily Mail. All news is reported with a bias as is all history to a certain extent. "The independent" is meant to be neutral but it is not, it swings more to the left and is essentially has become a labour newspaper in recent years. Thanks for the comment, you obviously are interested in my views or else you would not have read my blog. Thank-you for the hit, I now have more than 1500.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Liz Jones and Piers Morgan are definitely not well respected

    ReplyDelete
  10. That, is your opinion. However they are both very famous. I read Liz jones diary and her colum every week. I personally love her writing, although I do not agree with all of it and think sometimes she can be a bit self-indulgent. I also really like Piers Morgan, I just think he is really honest and I agree with nearly everything he says or writes as well. The daily mail is the perfect newspaper for people who have an interest in the news, but do not want to read something just as heavy as the guardian, independent or times. If I want to read something more intellectual I will read the times usually and occasionally the other two. I tend to steer away from the guardian though because it is too left wing for me, but Victoria Coren-Mitchell writes there sometimes and I like to read her column.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd be interested to see the views of Anonymous on FPTP since the EU referendum. Most left wing supporters now seem to reject the idea of a democratic vote now that it didn't go their way

    ReplyDelete
  12. She says students were upset by the cancelation at Mount Anthony Union,
    but not so significantly since they wanted to dance a specific way.

    ReplyDelete

Thank-you for your opinion!