The social contract

To my mind when you break the law you also break the social contract between yourself and the other people of this land, therefore if convicted you should also lose some of the rights of those who live in this land reverting back to a series of basics, merely to prevent abuse. Now I can also envisage a lot of laws which get broken that to my mind should not be offences as such, but were talking an ideal world here, so bear with me. One of the things that those convicted of an offence should be to lose the right to vote, those who break the law should have no influence on those who make the laws after all. Others are a lack of freedom provided by prisons. Lack of access to the legal system save only in recourse to appeals (or in defence against any legal moves against them). Common sense really, no doubt there are others you can think of, but being incarcerated at Her Majesties pleasure should mean that much of the pleasures of daily life should be denied you, a sort of tacit addendum to the time served in that you would come out not wanting ever to go back. Prison itself should be seen as a punishment by the public and the prisoner with some rehabilitation only towards the end of a sentence, unless of course we're going to deport them.
Most MP's seem to think the same way, particularly on giving prisoners the vote and it looks like the government might lose the debate on it, but not to worry, MP's are about to learn just how little power they actually have any more.

Express.

Convicted offenders will get the right to vote in prison despite a predicted mass revolt in the House of Commons today, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke insisted yesterday.
MPs are poised to oppose overwhelmingly the move to enfranchise thousands of inmates – on the orders of European judges – in a Parliamentary vote this evening.
But in a sign of confusion among ministers on the eve of the debate, Mr Clarke provoked fury by indicating that the Government will ignore the outcome of the Commons vote.
n a sign that the coalition will bow to the demands of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Clarke said: “We are grasping the nettle. We are going to comply with our obligations.”
His remarks provoked anger among Tory MPs yesterday and irritation among Downing Street officials.

Good old Ken, loyal to his Europhile roots to the end, despite the possibility that he might just create a massive constitutional crisis. Still the one good thing to come out of this will be if the government does lose the vote is just how the European Court will enforce the judgement and how the commons will react to it.
To add to the merryment the Archbeardy of Canterbury has stepped in, naturally on the side of those who think prisoners should have a vote.

“The notion that in some sense not the civic liberties but the civic status of a prisoner is in cold storage when custody takes over is one of the roots of a whole range of issues around the rights of prisoners.

“If we lose sight of the notion of the prisoner as citizen, any number of things follow from that, and indeed are following from that.”

Am I alone in thinking that prisoners are no longer citizens, at least for the duration of their sentences? Do the crime and face the time, we wont mistreat them, but we don't allow them the rights of citizens, that includes voting and other rights.

I'm watching this with interest, I can't see the commons giving way on this and I'm wondering what is going to happen next, governments might fall.

First blow to the rebels, an amendment put forward by former Home Secretary Jack Straw and senior Tory backbencher David Davis.

The motion, an expression of opinion by the Commons which is not binding on the Government, says the House “is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically elected lawmakers and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand.”

Ayes, 234

Nays, 22

Motion carried.

Over to the government now.