In reply to gazhbo:
> (In reply to Ramblin dave)
>
> You don't lose your rights - none of them. Some are restricted in a way that is necessary, proportionate and reasonable. It is not necessary, proportionate or reasonable to stop you having a say in who runs the system that locked you up.
>
Seems a pretty reasonable and proportionate condition of incarceration to me.
> We should be engaging people who have turned to crime, not alienating them further.
That's a big vote in favour of rehabilitation. After they have been rehabilitated back into society (or at any rate released) they can get involved in society again - and vote.
>
>Most people in prison come from a faction of society that, for whatever reason, refuses to take part. The more that can be done to remind them that they can contribute, the less reason there will be to lock them up in the first place. Everyone wins.
>
Perhaps by reminding them that their refusal to accept the rules of a democratic society mean thathey lose their ability to determine those rules.
>
> And before people get all wound up about rapists, murderers and paedaphiles having 'more rights' than them - just remember that not so long ago you could be locked up for having consensual gay sex.
>
Not really sure of the relevance of this. Unless you think that paedophilia or rape should be legalised?
> Plus - who cares. No party is going to campaign to legalise rape or burglary or whatever. >The vote will be split along roughly the same lines as every other demographic so it won't >change anything.
If it's so unimportant then why do you suggest that prisoners should get the vote in the first place.