BBC.– prisoners won’t get the vote after all. The story brought up all sorts of arguments about justice, European interference, sovereignty and stuff. My problem was that I couldn’t easily make the bridges between arguments presented. On one hand, the debate is not really that important- the number of prisoners is relatively small and many of them aren’t going to vote anyway. The other side revolves around arguments of principle.
Today, I have made some headway after reading the above linked feature. There are several strands to balance:
Prisoners with long terms, more than one parliamentary term won’t be free to benefit from their vote. The changes in society voted for, they wouldn’t see.
Prisoners will not have their right to vote taken away by the state, they have made choices that led them to jail.*
Prisoners may be incarcerated for behaviour that was in protest at government policy. They could still retain the vote, in my scheme, so can still affect law-making.
So my current position is- give them the vote unless they are sentenced for a long time, longer than a parliamentary term.
Anyway, shut up, I am tired and want to go.
Posted on my phone.