The colonists were not convicted and banished by the state.

However.

The NSW government passed legislation banning the emigration of several classes of worker in order to stymie the colony. In that sense many of the emigrants were outlaws.

Several persons were exiled from New Australia. They set up a colony of exiles. In that sense they were declared outlaw by the original colony, along the lines imagined by j_p_z.

finally, the story is entertaining enough to be excused absolute historical parallelism.

Until something specific about the particular interests of incarcerated people is an election issue, why does prisoner voting concern anyone. They’re likely to have broadly similar political leanings and issue-based concerns to the rest of us, unless and until a party comes up with a “release/behead all convicts” platform.

I hereby nominate Florida as the site for the first New Australian overseas penal colony. I’d much rather see a mini-Australia in Dade County than what’s there now.

Believe it or not, j_p_z, it has already been tried in Paraguay!

Can I recommend this story as a case study in doctrinaire self-righteous gone mad?

“The people� is undefined, State and Federal Parliament is given a right to define what an elector is or in fact how old you can be to vote or sit in Parlimament. It would be interesting to see if the Fed. Gov. could actually raise the limit, if this would or would not be struck down.

This would most definitely be struck down because by dint of long electoral practice persons between the ages of 18 and 21 have been deemed to be a significant group within the larger category of “the people”.

Let us say, however, that the Libs give the vote to 15 year olds, but after the next election the ALP rescinds it, the absence of any prolonged custom of suffrage for 15 year olds would likely make it legal for the next government to rescind the right.

Instead of worrying about which convicts can or cannot vote, I think Australia should simply follow its grand national tradition: send all the Oz convicts to some grim, distant overseas colony where, over a period of about a hundred fifty years or so, the penal colony will somehow gradually morph into a jolly, liberal, witty and pleasant, politically and culturally stable, rockin’-and-rollin’ replica of Australia itself. Then that Neo-Australia can send its own convicts off to yet another distant location, and the process will repeat itself until eventually the entire world has turned into Planet Straya, and all problems solved, except what to do about the moon colonies.

I hereby nominate Florida as the site for the first New Australian overseas penal colony. I’d much rather see a mini-Australia in Dade County than what’s there now.

Liam you seem to be saying even never to be released prisoners should be able to vote, I don’t understand the logic or emotion behind this. It would be very unpopular and assumes that violent criminals have a strong altruistic urge. Is that assumption valid!?

Liam, I think you have misrepresented me to an extent, paticularly in your first para. Children and the incarcerated do not have the same rights as a free adult. That never means that can be tortured. I never said that non-adults aren’t free, their parents or gaurdians exercise decision making for them.

Actually think the cost or benefit either way is very minor.

I don’t agree that prisoner’s fit into the “Governed” category. Free people are Governed, they are imprisoned. They cannot dissent in the same way you and I can. Laws affect them in a different way and they do not and should not get consent in how they are detained or how free people live their lives. Yes they have an interest once freed, but they had this interest before incarceration. Again, more generally, what value should society put on the future interests or altruism of (most of) the incarcerated?

Liam’s opinion better expresses how I feel about the current situation.

This can be easily justified from a starting proposition that only free adults have political civil rights.

Mark, nobody in Australia, not even prisoners, entirely lacks freedom or political civil rights. They cannot be tortured, kept indefinitely or incommunicado, punished for their expressed opinions, or sold.

Disenfranchisement is severe enough to add into the impact of incarceration without necessarily inflicting harm onto the prisoner.

I’d ask two questions: one, what do you hope to gain by it, and two, what about the impact on the Parliament which is elected by a reduced electorate?

The alternative is that prisoners are also “the Governed�, and that Governments require their consent to form.

That’s my position exactly. And I argued way up the thread that as the State governs the lives of inmates to a vastly greater extent than it does the rest of us, it makes little sense to disenfranchise them.

Sorry, I should have addressed this too.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to deny the worst categories of property offenders and violent criminals the right to vote for as long as they incarcerated. This would exclude a lot of people that the High Court would give the right to vote to, because they would be freed and punished by fines or punitive damages and other alternative punishments. You have to remember my views differ from current law in two ways: who goes to gaol and all prisoners lose voting rights.

This can be easily justified from a starting proposition that only free adults have political civil rights. So it depends on whether or not you agree with this statement. Disenfranchisement is severe enough to add into the impact of incarceration without necessarily inflicting harm onto the prisoner.

The alternative is that prisoners are also “the Governed”, and that Governments require their consent to form. It is entirely appropriate that prisoners (if incarcerated for serious enough offences, something I clearly have a problem with now) to acknowledge that prisoners are not affected in the same way as other citizens by the laws of the land, and that part of their punishement involves removing their cosnent to who form Government or can create laws.

Is this trivial for non-trival offences?

That in fact, is entirely my point, and it flows into, although being a very minor determinant of deterrence.

If violent criminals are often sociopaths, why would you want them to vote?

Those remaining in gaol shouldn’t have the same rights as the free

Of course they shouldn’t, and don’t. The trite statement that prisoners are non-free individuals doesn’t have any bearing on the question of which of their political rights should be removed, and why. The only thing achieved by preventing prisoners’ participation in elections, as I see it, is assuaging the anxieties of non-prisoners about the social makeup of the electorate.
As to punishment, BBB addressed deterrence and punishment way up the thread.
I have no response to your points about doing business from behind bars. Economic transactions are rightly irrelevant to the franchise.

Yes you can conduct business from gaol, so it is reasonable that you might be able to vote.

However,you are not taking the punishment side of things seriously. Unless you confiscate someone’s property or have a reason to do so under fair legal processes, they should be able to conduct business, albeit in a very clunky and rigid way. The accused and incarcerated have an incentive to liquidate their firms as a good going concern or to maintain them in good order, so there is a net social benefit in letting them keep the firm as it will be run well and ensure a fair trial.

Incarceration punishes people by taking away their freedom. You’re going to punish them less because of poor wording of the constitution? You have to remember I am arguing for a lot of people to be released and punished otherwise, while the most dangerous of society would stay in prison - while you don’t think that safety is a reasonable justification for denying votes - the deterrence of such punishments and essence of what incarceration is, both are. Those remaining in gaol shouldn’t have the same rights as the free. The idea that is a non-sequitur is based on a flippancy about the importance of deterrence.

How people are treated in prison by authorities is more important than their right to vote, for most people, both in and out of prison. This isn’t mentioned in the constitution. Should they be treated arbitrarily, but have the obligation to vote?

People who have lost their freedom as punishment shouldn’t have the same set of political liberties as do free people

That’s utterly non-sequitur, Mark. Why?
We take away the physical liberties of prisoners for a very few reasons, which I’ve listed above: community protection, their own protection, and for their punishment and rehabilitation. Removing their political liberties such as the right to speech, opinion and franchise is an act with an entirely different motive.
The restrictions on candidacy are designed to restrict the pool of potential MPs to ‘reputable’ people (something I happen to disagree with) but there can be no argument in favour of restricting the franchise qualitatively. Good or bad citizen, if you’re born or naturalised an Australian, you’re still a citizen no matter what you do.

Electors must elect the Parliaments

No, it definitely says “people” in my copy.

Reasons for the determination that the preexisting law is in force and valid have not yet been given.
The High Court order on the matter can be read here.

Have a look here and see if you think that in NSW at least if this crime against the person has reasonably long punishments for the various degrees it can be committed:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/penalties/serioustrafficoffences/otherdrivoffences.html

Roach could have done very little damage to another driver or occupant, or killed them. It is a very broad term and the worst offenders have done somethign close to manslaughter. It is not unreasonable however if this was purely a civil wrong. Maybe an economic analysis would say otherwise, but there is no reason that the deterrent wouldn’t necessarily be high enough. Most people would suffer greatly from this and would suffer simply because of their guilt. If we follow the model fo serious property crime (outlined in 2. below) for manslaughter and serious negligent driving, what would a victim or vcitim’s family prefer, almost guaranteed compensation in lieu of agreeing not to press charges (so making these kinds of offences dependent on the victim’s consent) or a lengthy and unsuccessful criminal trial fiollowed by another civil case? Yes this may throw it’s own problems up but I am very explicitly saying open it up to economic analysis.

2. “most” is the operative word. If you don’t say who owns it or try to compensate them, you get thrown in the clink. If you don’t know, then it gets liquidated and the proceeds go the victims of crime fund *which I know only goes to victims of violent crime).

3. Electors must elect the Parliaments. People who have lost their freedom as punishment shouldn’t have the same set of political liberties as do free people (they shouldn’t be electors or be eligible to stand for Parliament the constition says indictable offences over one year disqualify you for Parliament). There is no petty crimes or short maximum sentences you would be in gaol for under a libertarian regime so there is no real issue raised as by Roach. Or we give them a right (but not an obligation) to vote but they are not free to leave the prison.

4. The current ruling and current electoral laws simply impose compulsury voting on incarcerated people as well. Since when did we say that compelling someone’s conscience was a reasonable punishment for the free and incarcerated?

5. Rosa Parks had not committed any unresolvable property crime or a violent crime, she broke a stupid regulation. You need a new analogy. It’s just better to take most people out of prisons and deny those left in prison the right to vote.

convert most property crimes to tort law

Ludicrous. Police looking to pin any kinds of second-hand charges, like handling stolen goods, would have to identify the owner of the property. The libertarian paradise sounds like a wonderful environment for primitive accumulation!
And I’ve still heard no good argument why those people in prison serving sentences are any less members of ‘the people’ who must directly elect our Parliaments, according to the Australian Constitution.

Get rid of victimless crimes, convert most property crimes to tort law, imprison only the worst property offenders and violent criminals and deny them voting rights as long as they are incarcerated.