Ben will be on Daybreak tomorrow morning, to discuss the Prisoner Vote. Ed.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-11-18/mps-to-consider-prisoner-votes/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ben
Lecturing
About Me
- prisonerben
- United Kingdom
- Previously known as "one of Britain's best known prisoners...he constantly questions authority and exposes the futility of the system" The Times, Ben was finally released from prison after 32 years in August 2012. Pleading guilty to the murder of a friend when he was 14 years old, he renounced violence and fought for the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings. As a result of speaking truth to power, he served far longer than the recommended 10 years, leading Education Secretary Michael Gove to argue that he had "been punished excessively for a crime committed as a child". One of the more intellectual of prisoner-campaigners, Ben chose to educate himself from schoolboy level to having both undergraduate and post graduate degrees. He is currently one of very few prisoners in Britain ever to attempt a Doctorate. Ben's speciality is non-violent action and the Human Needs Theory. Now on Life Licence, He is forging a career as a CJ policy consultant, writer and - as ever - campaigner.
do you know what sort of time so I can tune in, inbetween getrting children ready for school x
ReplyDeleteShould be good for a laugh.Prisoners do not deserve to be given the option to vote.There are far more important things to discuss such as the European situation/NHS/Police/Prisons//Armed Forces & almost anything but votes for cons.Hopefully Cameron will get us out of the ECHR immediately & then Europe.Tackling immigration is far more important to the public than wasting time on prisoner voting.
ReplyDeleteHuman rights are never a waste of time. The Daily Mail comment section on the other hand, is. Which is where I thought I had been transported for a second there, after reading your comment.
DeleteJust out of interest, then, when did Prisoners stop being humans?
DeleteShows how naive you really are then if you think Cameron is going to get us out of the EU. The vote issue is a red herring and not worth the time spent on it, it should be passed end of. He'll never pull out of the EU but mugs like you will continue to vote for him.
DeleteAnonymous must be a sad soul - nothing to do but write ignorant comments. Prisoners are human beings too - mostly they are loved and cherished by someone - I wonder if Anonymous is?
DeleteAnonymous in this case has proven himself to be a Sun/Mirror/Mail reader.
DeleteThe European Court of Human Rights is not anything to do with the European Union.
Also, one has to ask, if the government will just break the law when it sees fit, what moral right does it have to imprison others who do the same?
Can't be sure about this but with regards prisons the government having breaking the law for ages, specifically the use of razor wire to top off prison fences. Apparently this is outlawed by the EU but rather than abide by the law, the government just pays a fine each year. As I said though I'm not sure if this is correct or the proper detail.
DeleteThat's an urban myth.... We don't pay any fines for the wire because we now use a type that is allowed.... Still pretty lethal though if you try to climb through it
DeleteFraid so, like the alleged ban on Censoring mail in prison. Nothing to do with the ECHR, EU, or any other Court. How do these myths perpetuate?
DeleteOh, look! Officer Turnkey's back again!
ReplyDeleteVideo here http://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-11-18/mps-to-consider-prisoner-votes/
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteActually, I agree with Anonymous on this point. Granting the franchise to prisoners would be a backwards step as it would diminish the value of the electoral process. If anything, I think the franchise should be restricted further, not expanded. I am open to contrary arguments, though.
ReplyDeleteExactly which current voters do you think are diminishing the value of the electoral process?
DeleteIn general, I tend to see restricting the franchise as a way to remove political power from the hands of a particular group so that their freedoms can be violated without repercussion - witness Jim Crow laws in the US, or apartheid in SA. Maybe you and I understand Democracy differently, but I would say that the value of the electoral process IS that everyone gets a vote, for exactly that reason. The whole point of democracy is that no individual or small group is allowed to control the government against the will of the majority.* That process and concept are undermined whenever one segment of the group is excluded from the decision making process, as it results in the final decision being an unrealistic representation of the goals of the group as a whole. Ultimately, the entire purpose of a democracy is that while money and power certainly affect campaigning, in the actual election a CEO and a garbage man both have the same number of votes, hopefully forcing the politicians to consider the needs of all demographics, because control over whether or not they get back into power is evenly distributed across all demographics.
*I'm not saying this always works, mind you. Depending on the voting system, it can backfire quite handily - but that is the goal.
So if you are locked up for not paying your VAT, or council tax (as one pensioner was some time back) or even your TV licence.... Should you not be able to vote then? Why is it that people always refer to the lowest level of criminal in the votes debate - murderers, rapists, paedophiles? They are actually the minority. What about deciding on the vote in relation to crime committed?
ReplyDeleteWe already do. Prisoners on remand and civil prisoners (i.e. fine defaulters, contemners etc.) generally can vote.
DeleteWhich constituency would a prisoner vote in for a GE? The prison's or would their entry on the electoral roll before being sent down be the one?
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to favour the extension of franchise to include all bar the obvious no-no prisoners - I don't see any argument against except for it being an extra punishment, which is a reasonable point but not one I'm interested in - but I've gotta be honest and say it's not high on my list of priorities. And I can't imagine why Parliament is getting its knickers in such a twist over the tiniest of movements, which is all that seems to be required. Presumably, the whole thing is another attempt to conflate EHCR with the EU and inflame Eurosceptic sentitment. I don't think it has much to do with prisoners at all. Which isn't very charming, is it?
Daybreak.
ReplyDeleteYou made the most out of a nothing opportunity.
Sixty-Three seconds! WTF.
Suffice it to say that prisoners are deeply connected to society. That says it for Ben if not for everybody behind bars. I dislike the idea that there should be outlaw groups from whom the franchise is withdrawn. People who feel alienated from society probably do not use their vote so, if prisoners were generally enfranchised, many would abstain. But it should be a premise of our democracy that everyone has a vote. The issue of UK parliamentary sovereignty, which has been insinuated into the prisoner debate, is of course quite separate. I see another poster is uneasy at the prospect of MPs (whose own virtue lies in having not been caught and sent to prison) voting on the fundamental democratic rights of prisoners. The right to vote should underpin our democracy and it should be unassailable by politicians.
ReplyDeleteI just viewed your interview & I have to say that you came across as very incoherent at times & were very evasive & not at all understandable.Prisoners are not generally part of society at large & society really couldn't care less about their concerns.There are far to many issues that concern society more at present.You obviously have a vested interest in prisoner welfare but quite frankly not many others do!
ReplyDeleteAnother scintillating post from the kind of screw I used to take pleasure in locking *out* of my cell when it came time to 'bang-up'. Prat!
DeleteHow do you know that post was from a screw??
DeleteYou don't do you, but every time you see a post that doesn't worship every word that Ben utters you assume it's from a screw and then go off on a rant about how much you hate dog screws etc....
Get this, you - even though you have been released long ago- are still imprisoned by your own brand of bitterness and bile.
Get over it, then get over yourself.......
Incoherent and evasive? I doubt it, as I have been debating this topic for years. Sometimes the issues are complicated and the subtleties not best suited to the early morning news format.
DeleteTrue, few see this as a significant issue. There are, as you point out, many problems with society.
But it is fortunate that some people do see the place of prisoners as important, and this should not be determined by populist whim.
And if you have no interest in prisoners welfare, consider this. Do you want a prisoner released to live next door to you after he has been mistreated and is full of anger?
Anon 11:11
ReplyDelete'How do you know that post was from a screw??'
Because he's been before; admitted as much; and repeats the same mistake in his punctuation! Of course, it could be someone using chicanery, but I’m guessing not! Are you a screw - or just in training?
The expression 'dogs hunt in packs' springs to mind!
I think this is what I would call a 'counterfeit issue'. The real purpose of 'votes for prisoners' is to punch a hole in the prison system and prison discipline. If you gradually 'normalise' prisoners and their environment, then the system slowly loses its moral force.
ReplyDeleteI happen to think the prison system is finished and I suspect (though I do not know) that this is privately-acknowledged among many of the powerful and influential. Incarceration does not work and is in fact counter-productive. I think we are witnessing a sort of salami-sliced process of decarceration and Ben's campaign is a contributor to that.
The notion of votes for prisoners has little logic or merit in its own right, but as part of a wider campaign to do away with the prison system, it makes sense.
An unusual analysis, TT! The issue arose out of euroconformity, as I understand it, not a conspiracy from within prisons or one that came from liberals at home. Thus it became conjugated with a matter of parliamentary sovereignty.
DeleteYour point about discipline is worth answering because the quickest way to get men's backs up is to treat them as scum. By giving them a modicum of respect and humanity, good order and discipline ought to improve.
There has long been a glimmering awareness that imprisonment may make people worse -- I remember a prison governor who mentioned it in his induction address to new inmates -- but to abolish the whole system would seem to throw the onus blindly elsewhere. People who experience spiritual crisis may go into retreat. Prisons might do a comparable job for people whose social dysfunction has gone beyond limits of tolerance.
I think awarding the vote to prisoners, as an exemplary disenfranchised group, has merit in the context of our precarious democracy, (1) by showing that our government can accept the rule of law and a place in a wider democratic union, and (2) by extending the franchise to a small despised and marginalised group. As I said in my earlier post, my personal belief is that an unassailable right to vote should be enjoyed by everyone.
What would prisoners do with a vote? I recall comments such as, "Piss off, they're all the same party to me, mate!" and, "I rather enjoy being away from all that." A few might use their vote while in prison, but the important point is that they would have the right of any citizen to vote or to abstain if they so chose.
I am not suggesting that this is, in all cases, a knowing or conscious conspiracy - even on Ben Gunn's part, though he will have to speak for himself on that point.
DeleteHowever I do think the passion this issue raises among those opposed to votes for prisoners is indicative that at least some among the elite realise that this is one more nail in the coffin for the prison system. That's why they are getting so worked-up about what appears to be a mere technicality: the more astute among them know that with each new reform, their coercive power over the population-at-large (the true purpose of prisons) slips away.
Once the general prison population has the vote, the balance tilts a little more in prisoners' favour: in some ways imperceptibly, in other ways quite tangibly. Cultures will have to adapt, the prison environment will have to alter slightly in a more humane direction, and the whole edifice loses some of its moral force.
The salami-slicing started, really, with the institution of open prisons (Newhall in 1933 was the first one, I think, during a period of official decarceration) and it has continued since. We will see the 'deinstitutionalisation' of incarceration (i.e. greater use of house arrest and community punishment), and eventually prisons will go, though maybe not in our lifetimes. They need not be 'replaced', which I think is your error. Abolishing prisons does not necessarily entail replacing prisons.
"That's why they are getting so worked-up about what appears to be a mere technicality…"
DeleteGood point, a postal vote (or its electronic successor) for prisoners would cause hardly an administrative ripple.