Site Meter

Sunday, April 03, 2011

A prisoner's lot is not a happy one, neither is it for prisoners families

A prisoner's lot is not a happy one, neither is it for prisoners families

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock:"My view is that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights is correct. Once an offender is sentenced, he is fined or jailed. The appropriate sentence is decided on by the court and it is the punishment that the offender should receive in relation to their offence. In fact, the offender suffers a great deal more than that, especially by being jailed. Almost inevitably the person in jail will lose their job and will not go back to it afterwards. Prison has a huge effect on children and families and there is a loss of status and position within society. All those factors are part of the punishment that the offender faces. Is the decision of the court therefore not punishment enough? Why, on top of that, should offenders lose the right to vote? Voting is a fundamental human right and I cannot see any logical argument for withdrawing it other than wishing to punish someone over and above the sentence decided on by the court".

(Source)

Just a thought...

Does David Cameron intend to produce a doctor's note confirming he's physically ill at the thought of giving prisoners the vote?

1 comment:

Tim said...

Nice to see a different view to the usual vindictive, pseudo-moral arguments.