The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A tarnished reputation: prisoners and the vote > Comments

A tarnished reputation: prisoners and the vote : Comments

By Debra Parkes, published 18/11/2005

Debra Parkes argues Australia should allow prisoners voting rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
My reason for opposing Debra's reasoning in giving the right to vote to prisoners is that they would all vote for bad guys in Australian elections, namely the socialist labor party. I stand in opposition to almost 100% of their policies and I would argue against anyone who would support labor. Rommel
Posted by rommel, Friday, 18 November 2005 11:28:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rommel, that is exactly one of the arguments that was used to deny women the vote "oh, they'll vote labour" when the conservatives were in power "oh they'll vote conservative" when the labour parties were in power.

Who someone will vote for is entirely irrelevant. It is their right, and responsibility, as citizens to vote. Surely in denying a prisoner their liberty, we are doing enough to punish them. Most prisoners re-join society at some point. Taking away their ability to vote and contribute to society in the mean time is hardly assisting them to re-establish a positive relationship with the outside world.
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 18 November 2005 11:44:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon if you deny a criminal any right to participate in the society then they have no choice but to continue being a criminal. The road to social redemption might start with a simple vote in an election.
The idea that prisoners will vote for "bad guys" is silly because we all know that an election is a choice between two evils anyway... :)
Posted by Donnie, Friday, 18 November 2005 11:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
with the nom de plume of Rommel,

you must be looking for an argument anyway. As despicable as Nazi Germanies policies were, only Rommel sought to change sides at the end, after having supported the commencement of the war to the full.

There is 300+ persons in jail for breaching corporate law, do you honestly suggest that they would vote labour? as for the others, like the vast majority of Australians at the next election, why shouldn't they vote labour?

Governments must make hay whilst the sun shines, and they seldom (if ever) retain government after using control of the senate to push through legislation which they have no mandate to push (nb Anti-terror/WorkChoices). Like it or lump it, all Australian citizens should have the right to vote, indeed perhaps the major cause of the disenfrachisment of prisoners in Australia is based upon the likelihood that they would choose not to vote (waht would you do, JAIL'em?).
Posted by Aaron, Friday, 18 November 2005 12:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon All,

We must not forget that the majority of prisoners are not 'lifers' and it is highly likely that these voters will face the 'consequences' of the election on their release. Once they are deemed to have been rehabilitated they are a free person to reintegrate with society.

Why then should they not have a say who is to be elected? What if it were a group in power that wrongfully imprisoned inmates, such as China or South Africa prior to Mandela? Would it be fair and equitable that democratically they had a right to choose their country's destiny, if not for them but for their family?

By saying no, I can understand that inmates should loose rights when incarcerated, but not when the large majority of inmates are released within three years and they were not able to help choose their governement representatives when rehabilitated.

The prison system is not like the movies, and neither are most of the inmates. They are short stays mostly, and they face enough exposure to unfortunate things during their time to mentally separate them from society, without having to unplug them further.

Give them a go, they will become role models for their family if we dont assume they are shot ducks once incarcerated for the first time.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 18 November 2005 1:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Surely in denying a prisoner their liberty, we are doing enough to punish them."

Not in all cases.

"Like it or lump it, all Australian citizens should have the right to vote,"

I don’t consider murderers and wife-bashers (and other assorted crims) my fellow Australian citizens. Even if removing their right to vote is symbolic, it is powerful. Given the fact that sentences seem to be getting lighter for vicious crimes, it’s completely fair to remove the right to vote from anyone serving longer than three years.

Those who serve over three years are not in gaol for petty robbery, or stealing bread to survive- they are there for crimes like manslaughter, (sometimes) assault, rape, and fraud.

"Give them a go" ? Your name is deceiving Realist.
Posted by wrighta, Friday, 18 November 2005 2:12:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A question:

Does anyone here know anyone currently incarcerated?

Has anyone ever been incarcerated?

They are murderers. wife bashers etc....am i hearing correct?

My name is not decieving at all, Wrighta, by the sounds you have had the wool pulled over your eyes in the comfortabe middle class for 2 long.

We have so many close minded people in the country it makes me sick. In fact, i am sick of wasting time posting to those who have these %$^# opinions. i will never post again. ever.

I am so disgusted at these views, i thought at least people invloved in this would have some intellect. People just put people into baskets: Muslims, Inmates, you name it some idiot will tell you they are all no good. Stereotypes, i cant believe it, i am sopposed to be talking with some of the cream here and they spew crap like this.

Have a nice boring life most of you. For some of you, take your energy and put it somewhere productive, we could hear this at the pub.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 18 November 2005 2:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My name is not decieving at all, Wrighta, by the sounds you have had the wool pulled over your eyes in the comfortabe middle class for 2 long."

Oh yes, poor middle class me, I don't have anyone in my family convicted of a crime. You're almost suggesting that if you're in the lower class bracket you have a perpetual excuse to be anti-social! Ridiculous! We all have obligations to NOT commit crimes, coming from a poor family makes no differences, especially in our welfare system.

"We have so many close minded people in the country it makes me sick. In fact, i am sick of wasting time posting to those who have these %$^# opinions. i will never post again. ever."

Clever. You hear a different opinion to your own, rant about how we have closed minded people in this country, and decide not to listen to that opinion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/

Gee, more deceiving names. I was under the impression this was a forum for various opinions… guess I was wrong!

"I am so disgusted at these views, i thought at least people invloved in this would have some intellect. People just put people into baskets: Muslims, Inmates, you name it some idiot will tell you they are all no good. Stereotypes, i cant believe it, i am sopposed to be talking with some of the cream here and they spew crap like this."

Um, I hate to state the obvious- but prisoners are 'no good'. That’s why they are inmates- they have broken the law. That's not to say they cannot make a life for themselves when they get out, though. Making such a life, however, doesn’t need to include the right to vote.
Posted by wrighta, Friday, 18 November 2005 2:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Realist,

I have unfortunately been incarcerated (joy of growing up in Jo Land).

I have been subjected to manufactured verbal confessions, unlawful arrest, villification, defamation, mis/malfeasance (by police) and consequently I have a very open view of what causes people to become disaffected and disenfranchised with society. However, due to the fact that I managed, through good fortune and artifice, to avoid being convicted on any count, I am still viewed as an upstanding member of society.

this however has resulted in my having less than complete trust in the police, political and executive arm of government. Remember, a large number of the most violent offenders have good reason to mistrust police and society in general. There are many forms of evil - those who commit it, and even worse those who condone it.
Posted by Aaron, Friday, 18 November 2005 5:59:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The thing that fascinates me is the profoundly undemocratic nature of international "law". As far as I am aware, there is no country where the people have delegated any power over themselves to any international organisation, there is (thankfully) no world government, there is no world army. There is so little internationalist feeling generally that UN peacekeeping forces, particularly in Africa, are often recruited from the jails.

Yet we still have this group in the world that constantly seeks to impose on people "laws" that the people don't want, and which the group is unable to have passed in the national parliament. We are particularly fortunate in Australia that it does not lie within the power of the politicians to change the text of the Federal Constitution, as this can only be done by the people. The only other country in which this applies is Switzerland. We have a simple procedure: the proposed change is submitted to the people at a referendum, at which we vote NO. The thing we lack that Switzerland has is popular initiative referendum, where signatures on a petition forces the government to hold a referendum, and if passed becomes law. If we ever get this in Australia the first such referendum would be for bringing back hanging, and this would solve the convict voting problem.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 19 November 2005 5:25:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that prisoners should be allowed to vote because, as I understand it, most of the prison population is incarcerated for non-payment of fines.

Analysis of the Tasmanian prison statistics supports this claim. Only Tas & Qld statistics were free and only Tas data cube had the breakdown by major crime
Posted by billie, Saturday, 19 November 2005 5:43:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My view is that those that are in jail have been removed from society and thus have no right to vote until released back into our society.

We should care little about what the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights has to say. We are a soverign nation and we decide what happens in Aus. Had enough of UN Committees, made up of delegates from despot countries, coming here and lecturing US on human rights. They should concentrate on some African and Asain countries, to start with.

As far as prisoner voting is concernerned. It is of little interest what happens in Canada, USA, or Europe. We followed them in introducing pseudo-multiculturalism and just look where that has taken them and us. We do not need their examples
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 19 November 2005 8:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Banjo - when forfeiting the right of liberty for reasons of anti-social behaviour, someone should forfeit the right to participate in the processes of deciding society's institutional leadership, for the duration of the incarceration.

We are all accountable for our own actions and denial of certain "rights", when our actions are judged by our peers as unacceptable, is both reasonable and ethical.

Another perspective might be - children under the age of 18 cannot vote - because we consider the state of their development makes them too immature to be "responsible". Prisoners, by their circumstance have displayed similar lack of "responsibility".
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 20 November 2005 7:30:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about those on remand? Have we foresworn completely the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

To deny prisoners the vote on the bais that they are detained, although the state has yet to prove their guilt denies them the right to participate in society, regardless of whether their guilt can even be established. Or have we as a society foresworn completely that golden thread of english law?

[see Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462]
http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s3540029.html
Posted by Aaron, Sunday, 20 November 2005 7:42:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debra Parkes –“The recent proposal to extend the voting ban to apply to all Australian prisoners appears to be rooted in a similar desire to look “tough on crime” without having to spend a dime to address crime or its root causes.”

Who on earth is this troll who writes “without having to spend a dime to address crime or its root causes.”

We have a huge social welfare budget – the largest share of all government spending
We have police services
We have Departments of Human Service
We have ministries of Justice and courts and social infrastructure

And this Debra Parkes woman comes along and has the audacity to suggest we in Australia “don’t spend a dime to address crime or its root causes”

It is easy for some hermit style potentate neatly ensconced with a professorship in the rarefied and secure atmosphere of university tenure in Canada to pontificate about Australian social values, regardless of being a parsons visitor (– I would expect more sense from the “parsons nose” than her rubbish).

In this statement she displays her complete and utter ignorance of what real people are really about.

If this is illustration to her true understanding of Australian society – then she clearly knows absolutely nothing.
People who know nothing have “crappy asinine” views – however I guess that explains how someone can think a prisoner deserves the vote – a view based on knowing nothing.

I sincerely suggest she recluses herself back to her university and do a course in basic human understanding, for sure – she has a serious deficiency in that topic, regardless of how much law she thinks she knows.

Final Thought
I know what will help reduce th eroot causes of crime Debra
Drug peddling scumbags should not be imprisoned - they should be executed.
Yep - that will address a whole lot of the root causes of crime.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 20 November 2005 7:54:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to thank Debra Park for linking the America hating social regressive caste with yet another subject that is a sure election loser and one that is certain to bring her ilk into disrepute with the public.

Her claim that , “ The right of all citizens to vote is the basis of democratic legitimacy” , is a statement which most people may generally agree with. But with a bit of reflection, they might also make a distinction between citizens and incarcerated criminals when endorsing that concept. Most people can see that it is sensible to withdraw voting privileges from convicted incarcerated criminals. Why should we allow people who are fundamentally at war with their own society to influence the political process? If Debbie thinks the public could give damn over the rights of people who rob, bash and rape the public, she is another fairy in lala land.

One wonders what self interest Debra can get from championing the rights of dangerous criminals? Perhaps she thinks that criminals are more likely to vote for the Greens or the Democrats, and she therefore does not want to see a significant part of the anti everything, loony left electorate disenfranchised?

Perhaps her rationale is , “If conservative governments support anything, then regardless of it’s merits, I will always oppose it on principle.” Although, maybe it is her obvious hatred of anything American that is the driving force? Since the US does not let American convicts vote, perhaps she is opposed to Australia adopting anything that the devilish USA does?

Since Debbie can not dream up a convincing argument to support her case, it is inevitable that she should revert to that presumed trump card of the morally bereft and intellectually challenged, “Human Rights.” The good thing about the loony left using this argument, is that the more that people who support their own societies enemies identify themselves with “Human Rights”, the more the electorate is inclined to see “Human Rights” as a Trojan Horse for promoting leftist agendas that can never succeed through the ballot box.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 20 November 2005 3:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Can we extend that to include bribe taking, corrupt police officer's?

If so I would happily pull the trigger or the trap.

PS perhaps this final solution could also extend to SCABS / Blackbanned employers' (I ain't always all that supportive of the human rights of SCUM).

see this proposal (I am authoring a proposal on similar lines for the ACTU / ALP now).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13#20614

PPS The biggest mistake many make, is to confuse being from the far left, with weakness - historically it is not so.
Posted by Aaron, Sunday, 20 November 2005 4:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 1

Unbeknown to most people on 17-4-1897 the Framers of the constitution rejected compulsory enrolment and voting!
I refused to vote for the 10 November 2001 federal election as well as in the 9 October 2004 federal election albeit on both occasions being a candidate. One can be a candidate without needing to be an elector.
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 and Thursday 17 November 2005 I conducted the case before the Magistrates of OBJECTION TO LEGAL JURISDICTION, the magistrate during the proceedings then made known that the 2001 Federal election appeared to be invalid, and so then the 2004 federal election and asked the Counsel for the Commonwealth DPP (Prosecutor) if he could declare this but meaning that Mr John Howard then was never elected Prime Minister. The Prosecutor responded that the Magistrate could not do so. I lost the case so far.
The Magistrate then, while I was still at the bar table, charged me with…FAILING TO VOTE on 11 November 2001 and also on 1 January 2005. I responded that I had NO CASE TO ANSWER, and explained that there was no evidence before the Court that on those days any federal election were held. The Magistrate responded that by the averment rule there was no need for this. He convicted me of FAILING TO VOTE for both 10-11-2001 and 1-1-2005. I asked the Magistrate for a REASON OF JUDGMENT why I was convicted and he responded that there was none and I would have none.

As 1 January 2005 is a New Years Day and a public holiday and no federal election was held that day it ought to be clear that using this unconstitutional averment rule means people can be convicted regardless of any crimes committed because the Magistrate is ordered by the prosecutor to convict.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Sunday, 20 November 2005 10:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2

After all, if the Magistrate had ruled in my favour to declare the election invalid (to complicated to set it all out in this post but can be provided by email if you desire to have further details) and John Howard was not elected, then so was the rest of the Parliament never elected.
Consider the issue of going to war by a person never elected!

I am an expert in certain constitutional issues, such as electoral matters and in my 30 September 2003 book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

I did set out extensively what I am on about.

But, in the end, when a Magistrate is directed to defeat my case, and I am convicted for a crime committed on 1 January 2005, regardless no election then was held, without any need by the prosecutor to present evidence, then forget about how good Australia is in electoral matters.

This was more then 4 years of legal battles to prove the 2001 Federal election was invalid, and in the end it is the prosecutor directing the Magistrate what he can or cannot do.
While normally no one can be charged at the bar table, this too was ignored.
If I am going to have a conviction for failing to vote when no election was held, then at least it is now a precedent that a person can be charged at the bar table. Now, this means lawyers also can be charged, and loose their sanctity at the bar table.
At least, it was clear that John Howard was never elected as the elections were invalid, that was my point to prove! And, if the others neither were elected then all legislation enacted since are also NULL AND VOID.
And, there is a lot more to it, As John Howard not being elected and having authorized murderous invasion could cop for this also treachery, etc.
This time they picked on the wrong person!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Sunday, 20 November 2005 10:15:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Schorel-Hlavka, are you trying to deceive by making apodictic claims about the intention of the framers of our constitution and the validity of government/s. There is the small matter of S51 of our constitution. Section 51 grants certain powers to the government and that would include the power to compel us to vote. In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote. You (the voter) are required to report to the local polling place and have your name crossed off a list. What you do with your ballot paper is up to you. If you do not mark your ballot paper you have not voted.

You could argue that the laws passed by our federal government are invalid and have been for some time because some MPs hold the passport of another country.
Posted by Sage, Sunday, 20 November 2005 10:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
of course prisoners should vote.

What other class of people would those opposed to them continuing to exercise their rights like to ban from voting?

What about those convicted but given a non custodial sentence, or those guilty of civil wrong doing eg Steve Vizard and persons of that ilk.

Punishment is handed down through the court system and incarceration is enough.

In essence people need to think up a reason to deny prisoners the right to vote - not the other way around and so far all I have read is that they have committed a crime and therefore forfeit that right - that does not constitute an arguement just an empty statement of claim.
Prisoners continue to live work and operate within a society - they are in fact full particpants in the social process - they are in jail representaitng the imprisoned class and the outcome of being a scalliwag and thereby setting us an example of how not to behave.

Most of those opoosed to prisoners access to the ballot bax are, it would seem, driven by the principles of punishemnt based on revenge - the Hang'em high brigade. Beats me why people waste so much energy on hating criminals or wanting people dead.
And rommels' argument is just stupid
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaron - re

“Col,

Can we extend that to include bribe taking, corrupt police officer's?
If so I would happily pull the trigger or the trap.

PS perhaps this final solution could also extend to SCABS / Blackbanned employers' (I ain't always all that supportive of the human rights of SCUM).”

The last time I looked, bribe taking police officers did not actually inflict a reduction in life expectancy or significantly diminished life quality or impart psychotic behaviour as the natural consequence of their crime.

As for those who suggest execution for what unionists might call “SCABS” or “SCUM”, I would remind you, unions are not elected under the common rules of universal suffrage. Thus, any criminal action proclaimed by a union is, by its very nature, socially defective and morally reprehensible.

You might dare suggest your proposal would find wide spread social support – so you can promote them if you wish and assure your future as the object of public ridicule.

I personally, doubt your proposal has any morality or democratic merit and will not.

However, I would speculate that executing drug dealing scumbags would find overwhelming public support and all we lack is the “political will” to implement it.

On a saner note – Sage “In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote.”

You are absolutely right.
“Attendance” is the 'tested event'. Anyone can discard or spoil the voting papers as they see fit. No one can force you to complete it – its one of the characteristics of secret ballots.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:35:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

Sorry, I was simply responding to your hypothetical - let's hang all the druggies. I think that is a wonderful idea - lets also hang all alcoholics etc. (and why shouldn't corrupt police be included?), matter of fact we could extend to serial parking offenders (predominantly asian according to Ray Martin).

Additionally, i do not advocate any criminal action by union members etc. (or others). I simply advocate publishing details of the companies (and management thereof) including addresses, photos etc. This would also include any (and every person) crossing picket lines. I do not suggest that either the ALP / ACTU should advocate or engage in morally reprehensible conduct, but of course they could hardly be accountable for others doing so.

However, as recent lockouts have extended for many months (locked out employees' are neither paid nor eligible for benefits - therefore many have NO income), it is inevitable that tempers may be frayed, WHAT CAN I SAY - IF YOU ATTACK WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES BE AWARE THAT YOURS MAY BE TARGETED. I do not advocate it, but I certainly cannot prevent it, people will not be targeted because they were identified - they will be targeted because of what they have done.
Posted by Aaron, Monday, 21 November 2005 5:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, that's a novel idea, Sneaky Peter. I never heard that one before.

So, criminals are providing some sort of public service by being bad examples, eh? Naturally, we should not take the vote off such public spirited people who only have the communities interest at heart.

I'll bet even Debra Parks winced at that argument.

Are you trying to do me out of a job by being the best argument I have got? You could probably do more for Debbie's cause by being on my side.
Posted by redneck, Monday, 21 November 2005 5:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aaron asks "What about those on remand?"

Being a most reasonable person, I would be inclined to find "remand" as an acceptable reason for not attending a polling place.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 21 November 2005 9:31:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What can I say.More leftist lunacy.What rights did the victims of the crimes perpetrated by these criminals have?It is about time criminals realised who holds up this fragile umbrella called civilisation that gives them sustenance.Our society seems to be infected with the victim mentality."Poor me.Someone must help me because I'm not responsible for my actions."Really pathetic.

Let's give support and recognition to those who take the difficult road of responsibility and hard work,rather than criminal lay abouts who seek soft options.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 November 2005 9:52:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to ABS, across Australia there were 24,392 persons in full-time custody and 53,054 persons in community-based corrections (community service, parole, bail and so on). In total this is about 0.15% of the adult population.

Last quarter 6,300 people entered the system and about the same number leave. That's 50,000 potential changes to the electoral roll every year. According to the AEC, it costs $2.75 per change. That's leaving aside the costs to the prison service.

Only a minority will serve more than a year, so they have an even chance on missing out on one election, state or federal.

What a waste of time, money and effort, in most cases not achieving anything at all.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David by taking them off the role for the grand cost of $2.75 ea,at least we the honest people are voicing our disapproval.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 November 2005 10:45:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elections do not fall within Section 51 of the constitution, it falls under other sections, but subject to what is implied or otherwise stated in the constitution.
In any event, being convicted of NOT VOTING when there was no election on 1 January 2005, underlines that we have a gross abuse of powers.
Sure, I can appeal, but more likely it will be another abuse of powers.

Ample of people are convicted regardless of being innocent of any crime committed.
And, again, constitutionally, only the States have the power to deny a person in imprisonment to vote.

Many a person is held on remand, in prison, for 2 years or more (that is right) only to have charges dropt or found to be NOT GUILTY. As the Framers of the Constitution made clear unless there is a conviction of some serious nature people should not be denied their rights. And even after they have served their time, they should be allowed, so to say, to start with a clean slate. Even be allowed to sit in the parliament.

To accept that any person can be denied the right to vote while in imprisonment, just consider the following scenario.

Mr “X” decides to stand as a candidate but realize that Mr “B” has a far better chance. Mr “X” files a false claim and Mr “B” is picked up under the terrorism act, and imprisoned for 14 days. Albeit it is found the allegations are unjustified, in the mean time an election was called and Mr “B” having been in prison now has lost his right to vote, and cannot enroll now as the rolls are closed and so he neither can stand as a candidate.

I have no problem with prisoners convicted of serious crimes and serving more then 3 years (just to state some time frame) to be denied to vote, but it ought to be for serious crimes only, and not people loosing their right to vote for minor offences!
Lets keep our sanity!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 21 November 2005 11:53:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And as to;
“Mr Schorel-Hlavka, are you trying to deceive by making apodictic claims about the intention of the framers of our constitution and the validity of government/s. There is the small matter of S51 of our constitution. Section 51 grants certain powers to the government and that would include the power to compel us to vote. In actual fact there is no compulsion to vote. You (the voter) are required to report to the local polling place and have your name crossed off a list. What you do with your ballot paper is up to you. If you do not mark your ballot paper you have not voted.” Posted by Sage

When you attack another person as to “trying to deceive” then at least make out a proper case.
For the record, I did attend to a polling station on 10-11-2001. Was known to be a candidate. Was in the polling station for about 15 minutes, even talked to the election official. Was not given any ballot papers to fill in and as such left. Nothing in the legislation states you must hit an official over the head to get ballot papers! No one denied that I was there! When the magistrate asked me if I filled in any ballot papers I made clear that this was confidential.
The moment the Court decides if you did or didn’t fill in a ballot paper then there is no such as confidential voting, and next we might have armed guards watching how people fill in their ballot papers. If you think that is nonsense. That is what people stated in 2001 about Australians ending up in detention centres. Now it were hundreds of them.
Either we have a constitution or we don’t have one
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:05:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For every thing a purpose redders.
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 10:28:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay: "David by taking them off the role for the grand cost of $2.75 ea,at least we the honest people are voicing our disapproval."

I thought we were voicing our disapproval by sending them to prison or making them serve community service? I can just imagine the average inmate saying "Sure they lock me up, but stopping me from voting really hurts!"

I think some people here are confusing voting with going to a party. Voting is a duty, not an entertainment.

This is a waste of time, effort and resources.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 22 November 2005 12:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debra, Thank you for calling those inside "prisoners" - rather than "criminals". Most are just people who couldn't or wouldn't pay fines or afford proper defence. They just make silly mistakes and often do things that those who whine the loudest have done and been lucky to get away with, particularly in relation to car accidents and temper control.
The dedicated criminals are few and far between.
Prisons are highly successful universities of crime. They can ruin the lives of persons who are not dedicated criminals and they fail dismally as places of rehabilitation, and fail even more as the means of deterring or preventing crime.
If you seriously want to rehabilitate people, teach them why we vote- why we have law. Citizenship education - while you have their attention - guide them. Instill a sense of duty. Get them to vote. First steps to proper, responsible citzenship. Empower them.
People can learn some nasty stuff inside. They generally learn nothing else except resentment. Their self-esteem is usually destroyed as a control measure.
A few yarns presented in an informal way about the old Greek dilemas and why the rule of law is a better way would be a start. There is a lot of very kind people with huge potential inside who deserve to vote. Just as there are a lot of criminals outside who deserve their come-uppance.
(I spent a brief period inside a long time ago - not enough to qualify me to comment with any great expertise. Nonetheless, it was an interesting learning experience. I have been in the watch house a few times too - heard some heart-wrenching tales about black deaths and the treatment of prisoners. The worst thing that happened to me was when I was being given a hair cut a prison guard got me in a head lock and was about to cut my throat with a pair of sissors when a guy doing ten years pulled him off me. He lost his privileges).
Let them vote - you're only a wrong choice away from prisoner status.
Posted by rancitas, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 12:34:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let them vote too. Who knows what can happens to you. In a blog, http://cracker.com.au/viewthread.aspx?threadid=85942&categoryid=11131 published on the net by me I describe how I, a regular train commuter, once lost my ticket inside a station and after a series of events, was detained apparently illegally inside a police station for over six hours. I am advised that legal aid will deny me assistance as the matter is outside their guidelines I was ultimately accused of being unable to produce a ticket.

My indigence, demographic, gender identity and lifestyle/occupation I submit led to me receiving a harsher treatment than say someone in a suit in the morning from a better area would get.

In societies like ours, the justice you often get is the justice you can afford to pay for. Many thousands of cases of what legal aid calls minor are denied help for representation even though there are indigent defendants. Try however suggesting to the court that you didn't get legal aid ipso facto the matter is trivial and well, you know.

We have little armies of lawyers running around representing foreign persons over immigration and other things at no cost out of their own sense of goodness, but thousands of times Australians also suffer injustices because often the justice you get is the justice you can afford to pay for. Or some people get harsher outcomes because of their non-conforming lifestyle/occupation, recreation, demographic etc.

Justice is blind....ha ha!
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Wednesday, 23 November 2005 4:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Debra, it was very naughty of you to call those inside “prisoners” instead of what they are “criminals.” Most incarcerated people are hardly just people who had a bit of a brush with the law. With prison populations reaching bursting point, judges are unlikely to jail anybody unless their offence is serious.

Dedicated criminals may be few and far between. But their population proportion is growing and the amount of damage that they do to our society is staggering.

US law enforcement tactics have become much more effective since “zero tolerance” policies have been instituted. There is a recognition by criminologists that the best way to control criminal behaviour (outside of a rational immigration policy) is to target that very small proportion of hardened criminals and simply keep them locked up for as long as possible on any legal pretext.

The idea that serious criminals can be rehabilitated by teaching them right from wrong, or instilling a sense of duty, is dancing with the fairies stuff. One of their problems is that they have too much self esteem. A car thief would rather steal cars for a living than work as a cleaner because his overblown sense of self worth rejects any honest work that he considers beneath him. Such men bash their wives and girlfriends because to have a female argue with them is unacceptable to their pumped up but fragile male ego.

Both prisons and armies use the destruction of personal self esteem as more than just a control measure. The idea is to stop prisoners and recruits from thinking entirely as selfish individuals and to make them think in terms of group identity. For armies, it is to make recruits understand that their very lives are not as important as the survival of the group. For prisoners, it is to make them understand that they are not the centre of the universe and that they must limit their selfish behaviour and start thinking about getting on with other people.

Don’t let them vote. You are hardly a choice away from prisoner status.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 27 November 2005 7:26:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Red,

Interestingly, and this is widely unknown, the zero tolerance schemes so popular in ht eUS are not actually that much more effective (if at all), unless the society also implements zero tolerance on police misuse / abuse of power at the same time. It is an obvious correlation between the willingness of people to obey societies laws - and whether the people tasked with enforcing compliance with those laws are also held to obey them.

I do support zero tolerance in a way, people should be given massive sentences for rape / murder / child molestation etc (eg 50+ years), so that when they are caught, they are very unlikely to offend ever again.

However I believe that short term prisoners, like those on remand, first offenders (minor) and fine defaulters etc. should still be entitled to vote. Basically any person that will be released during the next Parliamentary term, and will therefore be in the position where they have to deal with the result of the election.
Posted by Aaron, Sunday, 27 November 2005 10:42:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a follow up of my 20 November 2005 posting that I was convicted for FAILING TO VOTE on 19 July 2006 the County court of Victoria allowed my appeals, set aside the convictions and struck out the charges.

My case before the Court was that the writs for the (purported) 2001 federal election were defective and so ULTRA VIRES.

My issue was that as the 1915 referendum to give the Commonwealth of Australia legislative powers to make voting compulsory had not been proceeded with therefore there was no constitutional powers to force me to vote in the (purported) 2001 federal election!

I also published on 6-7-2006 my latest book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

And, this book was also filed as evidence in my case.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution found they had a real opponent they could not defeat!

Obviously the issue is that now that I won my cases, then all people unconstitutionally/illegally fined for FAILING TO VOTE should have their moneys refunded. Also, those who were wrongly convicted and now have a criminal record should have their convictions also set aside. After all, as much as the legislative provisions and the writs were unconstitutional/illegal/defective in my case so would it have been for all other people.

Obviously the Australian Electoral Commission having failed to pursue that John Howard was never validly elected, neither other parliamentarians has proven not at all to be fair dinkum in that regard to ensure proper elections were held!

For those who think John Howard ios more then 10 years Prime Minister, reality is that he was never reelected in 2001 as there was no valid election held! He is therefore the pretender!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 31 July 2006 11:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy