Quinn wins
Paul Quinn won the ballot so his Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill will be introduced and go to a first reading.
I’ve asked for a copy of the bill. Presumably it bans all prisoners from voting, not just some of them as is the case presently.
If you do a crime bad enough to go to prison, I think it is repugnant that you still vote. I even think there is a debate to be had about whether there is a period of non voting for those released from prison, if they were convicted of very serious offences.
UPDATE: The bill is here – Electoral _Disqualification of convicted prisoners_ Amen. At present only prisoners serving a term of three or more years are disqualified, and this would extend the disqualification to enrol to anyone currently in prison.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I’d like a bit more understanding on why you think this, David. Especially about continuing disqualification from voting after release. Surely at release the punishment has been met, and no further punishment should be meted out.
Do you want ex prisoners to reintegrate, or not? Removing a democratic right from a selected population does not enhance democracy. What are you afrai of? An ex cons party stealing votes from the National Party troughers that should have been jailed?
[DPF: I see it like parole. If they don't reoffend, then say after six years they get the vote restored. That gives an incentive to reintegrate!]
February 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Excellent Bill to be progressed. Even better is that very few if any of the crims would probably vote Act or National – more likely the Greenies. Hopefully those nearly 10,000 votes will be that fraction of a % that drops them below 5%.
Expect the greenies to vote against this popular measure.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
does it extend to crims sent away for continually breaching name suppression orders ?
February 10th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Leftrightout – it’s funny that you realise your party is also the choice of criminals. And yet don’t see that as a cause for reflection on your choice of party…
February 10th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada appears to disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauvé_v._Canada_(Chief_Electoral_Officer)
[DPF: I am sure the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with me on many things. But personally I don't think giving Graeme Burton the vote is a good thing]
February 10th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
This is an excellent proposal from a less than excellent MP.
It is a pity that Quinn did not include the removal of voting rights from those who receive the dole or DPB.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
PIA, which party do you think is “mine”?
February 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
DPF
I think the bullshit idea that a crim does the time and is all ok is past, they must show they have reformed and aren’t doing crime before they show that they have rehabilitated so why not a period after sentence/confinement (rem 1/3rd out for parole) before they can vote if jailed.
- What about life sentences, should they be taken off the role completely?
- Maybe prisoners entries in the voters role can state “taken off as convicted until date” so even name suppressed kiddie porn collectors can loose their voting rights.
- What about local govt too?
Big Bruv
I think you have a worthy position there, it should be up for discussion, non contributory to taxes therefore no vote.
LRO
The party of smallness.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Did they have a Maori MP put up the bill to avoid accusations of racism? Somehow I can’t see the Maori Party going for this one.
[DPF: You don't seem to understand how these bills work. They are not allocated to MPs. The MP proposes the bill as something they want to champion. They need support of Caucus to submit it, but that is no agaurantee it will be supported at all readings]
February 10th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
This is Inherently a good plan but it could be extended as one would hope to those on Home Detention and parole, possibly even to those on community sentences, if the election happened to fall within the persons 300 hrs or so then didums! Nice idea Mikenz
For Big Bruv’s Proposition this quote from “The New Statesman” seems very appropriate from the great and noble member of the UK Parliament Mr Alan B’stard MP put it:
“The rallying cry of the american war of independance was no taxation without representation I offer a new clarion call no representation without taxation”
lol
February 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
MikeNZ wrote: Big Bruv I think you have a worthy position there, it should be up for discussion, non contributory to taxes therefore no vote.
Only those who contribute to society should be have a say in how it is governed.
Criminals have offended against society as well as against their victims. Losing the right to vote for life as a consequence is reasonable, many countries have this rule. Beneficiaries in contrast should regain the right to vote once they’re off the public teat.
Given that the Labour Party’s core electorate is the beneficiaries and the criminals (alongside the unskilled immigrants and the deluded) a secondary benefit to rules such as this would be that the Labour Party would need to adopt policies which actually benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders in order to remain a parliamentary force.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Personally it is my belief that if you don’t contribute to society then you shouldn’t have a say on how it is run! However my question is how many people in jail/on the dole actually:
1. Understand the voting system?
2. Care enough about politics to vote?
3. Are not lazy and can actually get off their arse to vote?
But, it is surprising how many people are too lazy to work but can stay up to the early hours of the morning to commit B/E and have the energy to run from the police…
And agreed – most of these people, if they voted, would vote either labour or greeens – I mean why wouldn’t you vote for a party which advocates to pay for your lifestyle!
February 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
People convicted of crimes against property or people should be discqualified from voting.
Those against the state/themselves i.e. victimless crimes should not be affected.
I’d hate to see someone locked up for growing pot be banned from voting.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
That would rule out most overseas voters.
And many pensioners.
And students.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I think disenfranchising people is very dangerous indeed. Also, I suspect there may be right wing support for this bill on the assumption that most prisoners would vote left.
Anyway, I have a better idea. What about disenfranchisement being a condition for name suppression? Get your name suppressed, lose your vote ! That would hit the big end of town nicely as well.
[DPF: Under MMP especially the effect of this bill would be minimal on an election outcome]
February 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
And is it repugnant, too, that prisoners can get student loans?
[DPF: Nope because they don't get them as of right]
February 10th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Has anyone got any evidence at all that looks at what proportion of criminals vote, and what their voting preference tends to be?
February 10th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
i wonder how many with convictions actually vote anyway?
February 10th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The only wrong thing I see with this is if someone gets in power and creates a law that imprisons say all gingas, or all scientologists, or all people who own a Britney Spears CD. It is harder to get a repeal of the law in a system where you are behind bars and refused the right to vote. Why would anyone stick up for you and vote to change the law when your vote no longer counts? You rely on other people feeling sorry for you for being a genetic mutant, a sucker, or aurally challenged respectively. How many of these people are out there? Your mom and who else?
February 10th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I don’t think we need to drag voting into the justice system.
- Criminals are still citizens and the right to vote is a fundamental right (and obligation) of citizenship.
- The US shows how hard it can be to keep voting lists straight
- It’s hardly a disincentive to crime or really much of a punishment but it does create the (bad) idea that amongst criminals that they are outside society and aren’t bound by it’s rules
February 10th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
I propose an amendment to the Bill that you only qualify to vote if you have paid taxes for the 3 years prior to the general election. Or to turn that around, you a disqualified from voting if you pay no taxes (GST not included)
That way only people who pay taxes get a say on where their tax dollars are spent
February 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
“Only those who contribute to society should be have a say in how it is governed.”
I find that stance very unstead one.
How about we expand that.
Those who earn less then 50k a year get 1 vote, those who earn 50-100k get 2, and 100k+ get 4, and so on?
After all, if voting is about contributions to society then obviously those that make the largest contributions should get the largest votes.
For the record, i consider removing voting privileges permanently as breaking a fundamental right in a democratic nation. When we start being selective about who can vote, it won’t be long till we become selective on who we can vote for.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Democracy is far too important to take voting rights away for something as trivial as a criminal conviction.
[DPF: So you support for example Graeme Burton geting to vote from prison?]
February 10th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
And is it repugnant, too, that prisoners can get student loans?
Assuming they get released, maybe not so much. Likelihood of reoffending probably goes down. And does it matter whether they get the loan inside or once outside prison?
February 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“I find that stance very unstead one.
How about we expand that.
Those who earn less then 50k a year get 1 vote, those who earn 50-100k get 2, and 100k+ get 4, and so on?
After all, if voting is about contributions to society then obviously those that make the largest contributions should get the largest votes.”
I think this idea has merit and should be explored further
February 10th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“Democracy is far too important to take voting rights away for something as trivial as a criminal conviction”
What we have in New Zealand in not a Democracy
What we have each electoral cycle, is parties trying to out promise and bribe us with our own money to get elected
February 10th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Surely the greatest challenge facing our nation is that too many prisoners are voting.
[DPF: SUrely the greatest challenge facing our nation is that Danyl doesn't understand the difference between a Government Bill and a private members bill]
February 10th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada appears to disagree with you.
We don’t live in Canada.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Surely the greatest challenge facing our nation is that too many prisoners are voting.
Ashraf Choudhary would vehemently disagree with you.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I think that if you are released from prison and there is no parole affecting your release, then you shoul dbe able to resume voting. However, if you are on parole, then no.
Crims in prison have the right to be fed and have the rain kept off them. They shouldn’t get the same rights as non-criminals.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Lipo (37) Says:
February 10th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“I find that stance very unstead one.
How about we expand that.
Those who earn less then 50k a year get 1 vote, those who earn 50-100k get 2, and 100k+ get 4, and so on?
After all, if voting is about contributions to society then obviously those that make the largest contributions should get the largest votes.”
I think this idea has merit and should be explored further
It has merit alright.
Unfortunately it will be a Leftest Government by the time Salary and Wage Earners outstrip the self employed for voting
February 10th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Not at all sure how I sit with this. Are we saying that an imprisonable offence inherently strips away citizens rights?
Many offences have punishments to be either a fine or an imprisonment term, implying that there is some equivilence between the two.
Should everyone so fined as an alternative to imprisonment also be disqualified from voting? If so for how long? – until the fine is paid? What if it is paid in full immediately – is there any further sanction?
In the case of imprisonment, what if the term is less than an election cycle and served within that time – is this timer server able to vote because he is now back out in the community as a normal citizen but another time server is unlucky enough for his sentencing period to overlap with the time of an election and thus is so disqualified?
But I guess the underlying question, especially in light of above calls for all sorts of additional sanctions against the right to vote, is this; at what level does the enfranchisement to vote lie, in an open democratic society? Is it fundamentally part of citizenship or does it sit merely as a condition of particular types of good or bad behaviour?
I think the argument is really one of the qualifications of citizenship (in the non-immigrant sense) and how plastic these are.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Restricting voting to only those who pay tax gets stupider the more you look at it.
Prisoners?
Pensioners?
Overseas voters?
Women at home looking after children (including partners and wives of tax payers)?
Students?
Property investors? (except for the few that may actually make a profit)
Any other business people not making a profit?
Anyone avoiding paying tax(legitimately or otherwise)?
Anyone on ACC?
Government employees (they get far more from the government than they pay in taxes)?
February 10th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Pete.
“Restricting voting to only those who pay tax gets stupider the more you look at it. ”
No it does not.
Prisoners…No
Pensioners… of course they should be able to vote, most of them would have paid their share of tax during their working life.
Overseas voters….Not if they have been out of the country for more than three years.
Women at home…Yes, they would get the vote.
Students…Yes
Property Investors…Yes
Any other business people not making a profit?…Yes
Anyone avoiding paying tax(legitimately or otherwise)? ..Yes
Anyone on ACC?..yes
Government employees (they get far more from the government than they pay in taxes)?..yes
Dole and DPB bludgers….NO.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
If your sentence ends before the term of government expires, then you will have paid your debt to society and, having done so, should have a say in who governs like any other citizen. You should be able to vote. That is the current law as it stands – why change it? This doesn’t affect the worst crims sentenced to greater than three year terms – they can’t vote now anyway. This affects only minor crimes. If you are a free man or woman for any part of the term of a government, you should be able to vote for that government. No exceptions.
More horrible right-wing knee-jerking red meat policy from MPs who should know better. Human rights should not be taken away in this manner.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Pete.
“Restricting voting to only those who pay tax gets stupider the more you look at it. ”
No it does not.
Big Bruv
Are you aware that Dole Bludgers and DPB have tax deductions from their benefits. You have now agreed that those people should get the vote on the basis of tax paid, and may I suggest that they probably pay more tax than Double Dipton
February 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
This Bill is idiotic political posturing. Its impact is entirely arbitrary affecting only some convicts some of the time – those who happen to be in prison during an election. Furthermore it is not a punishment (99% of prisoners will not give a damn), a deterrent, a restitution or character reforming.
It is just stupid.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Paul Quinn must be genuinely worried that National will lock up so many people in overcrowded prisons that they might form an electorate.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I don’t have a problem with prisoners in jail not being allowed to vote. When they committed a crime, they breached the social contract, and therefore should have no say in it while in prison. Once the prison sentence is over, I would hope they would not breach it again, as surely that is why they are let out of prison, and thus they should be accorded full rights. (I know, I know. Rates of recidivism would say otherwise. Nonetheless, I believe an increased expectation that past offenders will reoffend will lead to a greater likelihood of reoffending. Something from some kind of expectations theory in management, I think.)
However, I do suggest that monetary contributions are not the only important ones that an individual/family unit makes to society, so it is perhaps an illogical idea to suggest that the weighting of one’s vote be determined only by the monetary contribution an individual/family unit makes.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
re bruceh:
>Are we saying that an imprisonable offence inherently strips away citizens rights?
Yes we are. It certainly strips away the right to freedom of movement and freedom of assocation, and other rights to some extent as well. There is no way to decide purely on principle which rights are retained when imprisoned, so arguments that we can’t ‘take away human rights’ just don’t work.
My view is that once someone is convicted of a serious crime, we should stop using the language of rights altogether and simply seek the best outcome. It is too hard to argue that criminals voting leads to a better outcome, which is why people are resorting to transparently unsound rights-based arguments.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
We may not live in Canada, Bevan, however our Bill of Rights draws heavily on Canadian jurisprudence. Our Bill of Rights Act is not suspended for persons convicted of a crime; in fact, it is in such situations that the rights take on their most important meaning. A right cannot be trumped unless there is some manifestly greater social good; and that is why exceptions to one’s rights under the Bill of Rights are few and far between. A right to participate in the process of democracy is surely no less important than the right to legal representation for an accused person; and no one would seriously suggest that the latter is removed from a person once convicted of an offence.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Don’t forget that Paul Quinn stood in Hutt South so he is probably looking to the future with this bill and ensuring that Trev can’t vote against him when he likely gets locked up for assault (which is long overdue).
February 10th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
I do not like this.
Repugnance of the crime is taken into account in sentencing. If that isn’t the end of it, what is?
If you want to remove their right to vote, why not go the whole hog and remove their human rights as well? Then you could have the Black Hole of Calcutta instead of modern style prisons; treat them inhumanely and save a fortune on prison running costs.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Pretty ineffective bill – how many crims vote anyway?
But anything that sends Peter Williams QC into a rage will get my vote.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
I’m with Danyl and BlairM.
This bill wont ever get passed so no need to worry about it anyway.
[DPF: Won't ever get passed? you think David Garrett will vote against it?]
February 10th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
# Will de Cleene (383) Says: Paul Quinn must be genuinely worried that National will lock up so many people in overcrowded prisons that they might form an electorate.
They already have, it’s called the Labour Party.
Pure irony of course, that the Party that represents the interests of the beneficiaries and the criminals to the detriment of everyone else calls itself “Labour” -”Labour” is what the rest of us do in order to support their lifestyle choices.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
This may seem a stupid question: Prisoners vote through something akin to an absentee ballot?
February 10th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada does happen to disagree with DPF. My claim to fame is that I challenged the Chief Justice on this point when she gave a lecture at Canterbury Uni. My argument went along the lines of prisoners are suspended from society and therefore should be suspended from the privileges of being part of society. Her response was basically along the lines of if you alienate prisoners completely from society they will never reintegrate and encouragements to rehabilitate are limited. Sounded like a lot of management theory (read: bullshit) to me but she argued her point better than I did – probably need some brains to be a Chief Justice!
In any event I still think I am right and serving prisoners should have that right suspended during sentence.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
How does that saying go… ‘The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.’
February 10th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Kiwigreg – ACT will support this 100%. Maori party won’t as it will affect half of their consitutent!
February 10th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“[DPF: Won't ever get passed? you think David Garrett will vote against it?]”
Only ACT (maybe) and National would be in favour. Key will trade with the Maori party and National will oppose it (probably on “human rights” grounds. Just my (entirely uninformed) 2 cents.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
How many people vote in Rimutaka Prison? Maybe Chris Hipkins majority has just disappeared!
February 10th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Captain Neurotic asks:
More to the point, how many of the general population could answer “yes” to those questions and that they understand the basics of the issues on which the parties stand? Remember just before the last election when the Herlad ran a story (picked up by DPF) of some idiot girl who was going to vote Green “coz she just, you know, liked them” or words to that effect?
I’d still rather preface the ballot paper with a simple multi-choice non-partisan quiz on our voting system and some very basic general knowledge questions on politics, economics and related issues. You’d need a pass mark before you got given a ballot.
I’d rather a well-informed, intelligent prisoner vote and an ignorant slogan-absorbing troglodyte didn’t, thanks.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
If one is convicted in court and pays a fine you have done your duty to society and if you go to jail when you come out you have done your time is a misnomer I think.
Surely the issue should be are you a risk still or will be again?
Only when you have shown that you aren’t, that you are a law abiding, contributing member of society then you have done your duty.
For surely, we want to say this is what we value and stand for as a society this is the acceptable standard of citizenship?
So giving prisoners the same rights and privileges as citizens who are law abiding and contributors to society undermines the point of being a good citizen doesn’t it?
If you are convicted you shouldn’t get voting rights as an ordinary citizen surely?
So what about beneficiaries? they are like a prisoner, a dependent of the state as without OPM (ours) they cannot exist?
Do we let other dependents like bankrupts handle money, no.
We say you can’t for a period and someone will keep an eye on you and later you can be rehabilitated.
So why not treat voting rights the same way?
If you can’t exist as a contributing or law abiding member of society you can’t vote until you have rehabilitated yourself??
February 10th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
MikeE:
Actually, yes we do. While their affairs are overseen by the Official Assignee, bankrupts can and do earn money and are permitted to spend a portion of it on themselves and their family. The Assignee then takes money over a set amount and apportions it to paying the bankrupt’s creditors.
Not all bankrupts are beneficiaries (in fact I’ve yet to meet one that is) – they have jobs and they’re earning an income, part of which goes to pay their creditors. They’re explicitly allowed and expected to “handle money” but cannot enter into credit contracts over a certain value, so your assertion is quite wrong.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I agree with Vibenna:
What is the benefit in taking the vote off them. What is the cost? To me, the cost is that it makes them feel even less part of society, and is more likely to result in them seeing the law abiding as “them” who are out to get “us”. Not really a recipe for reintegration and going straight.
February 10th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
If you’ve committed a crime sufficient to be locked away from society, I don’t see why you should be allowed then partake in the most fundamental act of a citizen in a democracy, i.e. voting for the government. No way.
I’d turn it around and ask why should they get to vote?
February 10th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Because of the cost I described above. It further pushes them to the fringes of society, and further encourages them to believe they shouldn’t care about the victims of their crimes.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
This is just riveting stuff. Most prisoners probably don’t vote anyway.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
I also support the bill in principle but think it goes no where near far enough.
Pete George asked
Prisoners? No!
Pensioners? Only if they prove competent by passing a test.
Overseas voters? Only if NZ is their place of residence.
Women at home looking after children (including partners and wives of tax payers)?Yes, if they pass the competency test
Students? No but separate electorates on the lines of the current racist seats may be created for this non-productive sector
Property investors? (except for the few that may actually make a profit) Yes, as long as they are currently out of jail and earning a living.
Any other business people not making a profit? Yes, as long as the business is legitimate
Anyone avoiding paying tax(legitimately or otherwise)? Yes, it is a citizen’s duty to pay as little tax as possible.
Anyone on ACC? No, not “anyone”, just those who qualify as taxpayers and/or pass the competency test
Government employees (they get far more from the government than they pay in taxes)? Yes – although if we had a “half” vote …..
February 10th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Fantastic! A splendid initiative.
Now all that needs to happen is to extend that to anyone who doesn’t contribute to the economy, i.e. benefit bludgers. Simply no way they should be able to vote themselves a guaranteed income for sitting on their fat arses.
February 10th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
In a perfect world this shouldn’t cost much. But I accept that the moment you do a query between the Electoral Role and the Justice Department database you’ll get lots of discrepancies. Still in theory there is no reason why the Electoral Role cannot end up with a little asterisk by your name if you’ve had an appropriate conviction. If you rock up to the polling booth you get told “sorry, no” and you can’t get a postal ballot.
I really doubt many crims will see this as an additional reason to be bad. Most of them probably don’t have conscious reasons.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I think Martyn Finlay, at the time that prisoners were given the vote, said that giving them the vote was good for human rights and bad for the Labour Party, because most of the prisoners were National Party voters.
That was some time ago, and my memory may not be exact.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Finlay was a flake. Here is an extract I came across. Most of what ails the prison service today can be laid at the feet of him and other socialist tossers like him.
Martyn Finlay
Martyn Finlay was a highly-educated career politician
with a PhD in law.
[Slide – Finlay]
A dyed-in-the-wool liberal, Finlay was a champion of the
underdog and a sympathiser with the ‘liberation
consciousness’ that was popular in the early 1970s.
From the very start he announced that he detested prisons
and that he wished the brand new institution at
Paremoremo could be pulled down.
With those kinds of views he was a surprising choice for
Minister of Justice.
Finlay had fine intentions but like Matt Robson (MJ 1999-
2002), Finlay was an impractical idealist who tended to
get carried away with his dreams.
21
His statements about prisons increasingly alienated him
from his department, which was constantly fighting to
talk him out of some of his more radical proposals.
He had some successes:
banned punishment diets, liberalised home leave,
parole and remission procedures, let inmates have
telephone calls, gave inmates the vote.
But he made some huge mistakes.
Paremoremo Prison was in uproar as a result of initial
mismanagement and a new superintendent, Jack Hobson, was
stuggling to regain control.
Finlay seemed to side with the inmates, and he was openly
friendly to Project Paremoremo, a group of Leftist
agitators who were trying to get rid of Hobson.
This infuriated Hobson, and alienated Finlay from the
prison service as a whole.
But Finlay’s worst mistake was in 1973, when he decided
to allow prisoners to write personal letters to him.
Prison officers interpreted this as a sign that Finlay
was against them and siding with the criminals
and National had a field day, launching withering attacks
on Labour’s ‘pro-criminal’ justice policy.
22
In the 1975 election, in which Labour was defeated in a
landslide, Finlay lost more votes than any other
politician.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Johnboy;
Thank you.
Over the past 35 years I have forgotten what a dickhead Martyn Finlay was. It is comments like your’s that make this the best blog site.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Cheers Tauhei. Don’t get me started on Saint David of Mangere or Saint Rodney of the Green.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:11 am
DPF, you ask: “So you support for example Graeme Burton geting to vote from prison?”
I certainly support him getting to vote. What if a future government made it a crime to read kiwiblog, or deny climate change and thereby disenfranchised vast swathes of the right wing voting base? Highly unlikely yes. But it does no harm to allow convicts to vote, and it might do harm down the track if they are disenfranchised.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Anyone else a bit concerned that New Zealand decides what laws are worth looking at based on a bloody chook raffle?
February 11th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Once you are imprisoned you forfeit a number of rights. The right to vote should be one of them.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:20 am
I think the same should apply to all say, hmm… Catholics. If you choose to be part of such an unforgiving and outdated religion that is so… [what did DPF call it?] bad, then it is repugnant that you should be able to vote.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Basically, all that Johnboy has listed above is de riguer in Finland, which has one of the lowest imprisonment rates, recidivist rates and crime rates, Muslim immigrants notwithstanding, in the world.
But hey, isn’t vindictiveness just so much more fun?
February 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
I think the same should apply to all say, hmm… socialists. If you choose to be part of such an unforgiving and outdated dogma that is so repugnant and responible for so much death and misery that you should be able to vote.
I have a question though NOt, why did you pick Catholics and not Muslims?
February 11th, 2010 at 9:23 am
How many do you think are in NZ?
How do you identify them Look under all the beds? Or just take the word of the McCarthyists?
February 11th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Yes pete we should focus on the obvious threat of Catholics. Lets all gather the firewood then.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Forget Canadian jurisprudence,they are very “activist”.
Prisoners go to jail to lose certain rights,this is no big deal.
Well done Paul Quinn ,keep up the good work of rolling back all this touchy feelly,leftie/liberal bollocks.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:34 am
>Maybe Chris Hipkins majority has just disappeared!
Unfortunately they vote in their electorate of residence prior to being imprisoned, not the electorate where the prison is located.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Great, this will really surface the dichotomy system; all white collar crimes are free while Labour supporters are locked up behind bars. It’s possible because this idiot PM has no clues as how to organise the economy let alone its social organisation as long his parasites supporters are happy.
The first amendment or another human right is out the window and this idiot PM doesn’t have a clue..
February 11th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Murray – I randomly choose catholics to raise a point, not attack any particular religious group. So why you think I would use muslims as an example is beyond me and not worth getting into.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:09 am
What if they were on the run before they were arrested?
Seriously though, this dilutes the effect 8500 potential voters would have. Does anyone know what % of prisoners vote? Half-ish like most electorates? Or do they have better “turn-outs” because they have a bit of time on their hands?
February 11th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Was talking to my mate who is waaaaaaaaay right of me but even he finds this bill disturbing. The right to vote is fairly fundamental and the use of similar provisions overseas (US) has seen abuse of the system.
Considering the active prision population is only in the thousands, and hardly a massive voting block it seems like a bit of a waste of time really.
Further it could result in some unsatisfactory results. Say you oppose a law, and you commit civil disobedience for that law and then go to jail as a result. You cant then even vote against it.
There are many laws which are pretty contensiou. Quite simply think this is a bad law.
[DPF: The controversy in the US is about ex-cons not being able to vote. I don't think anyone there advocates prisoners still in prison should be able to vote]
February 11th, 2010 at 11:28 am
So you support for example Graeme Burton geting to vote from prison
Why shouldn’t he get to vote?
February 11th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Why are some people getting upset over this bill? It merely extends the current law from 3 years in prison to all prisoners.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Given up on that whole “consent of the governed” thing, eh, David? Tell me, do you still call yourself a liberal?