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".

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

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.

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.

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.

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.