The Attorney General argued that these three objectives justified the infringement of prisoners’ right to vote : 1. to affirm and maintain the sanctity of voting in our democracy 2. to preserve the integrity of the voting process 3. to penalize offenders for the crimes that have committed 3. The courts had responded to each of these objectives separately, for the first objective the court said that the symbolic and abstract nature of the first objective reduces it as a jurisdiction for violating a constitutional right that everyone in Canada has. In addition the slow process toward universal suffrage means that it is doubtful that anybody can be denied their right to vote based on the premises that they are not decent people. The second objective according to the court is equally unacceptable because there is no reason to believe that inmates do not have access to these ideas. In addition, the taking advantage of ideas is not a prerequisite for the right to vote. Furthermore the prisons should ensure conditions are as compatible as possible with the right to vote. The third objective which was penalizing offenders for the crimes that they have committed, was also insufficient according to the court. The reason is because if it is meant to impose punishment on the prisoners, it is already punishment for being incarcerated not for committing a crime. The intent to punish serious offenders denial of the right to vote to only those imprisoned is both over and under inclusive. In conclusion the objectives presented by the Attorney General are unacceptable, and insufficiently important. 4. In my opinion after reading about Sauve’s struggle to get prisoners their right to vote, I believe that prisoners should have the right to vote. There are three reasons why I believe prisoners should vote, the act of voting emphasizes the value of order and rule of law. It would allow prisoners to be integrated into society, and finally not allowing prisoners to vote would change democracy and change the way democracy works. The act of voting would emphasize the value of order and rule of law. There are three important principles to rule of law. 1. General recognition that the law is necessary in an orderly society. 2. The law apples to everyone, no one is above the law. 3. A person right cannot be taken away in accordance to the law. Therefore allowing prisoners to utilize their right to vote, would allow them to help influence the law and policies about prisons and society in a constructive manner. Also it would be consistent with the rule of law, since as they are still Canadian citizens they have their right to vote. In addition, if we do not allow prisoners to vote we are sending them a message that they aren't part of society and they should remain alienated. Therefore allowing them to
The Attorney General argued that these three objectives justified the infringement of prisoners’ right to vote : 1. to affirm and maintain the sanctity of voting in our democracy 2. to preserve the integrity of the voting process 3. to penalize offenders for the crimes that have committed 3. The courts had responded to each of these objectives separately, for the first objective the court said that the symbolic and abstract nature of the first objective reduces it as a jurisdiction for violating a constitutional right that everyone in Canada has. In addition the slow process toward universal suffrage means that it is doubtful that anybody can be denied their right to vote based on the premises that they are not decent people. The second objective according to the court is equally unacceptable because there is no reason to believe that inmates do not have access to these ideas. In addition, the taking advantage of ideas is not a prerequisite for the right to vote. Furthermore the prisons should ensure conditions are as compatible as possible with the right to vote. The third objective which was penalizing offenders for the crimes that they have committed, was also insufficient according to the court. The reason is because if it is meant to impose punishment on the prisoners, it is already punishment for being incarcerated not for committing a crime. The intent to punish serious offenders denial of the right to vote to only those imprisoned is both over and under inclusive. In conclusion the objectives presented by the Attorney General are unacceptable, and insufficiently important. 4. In my opinion after reading about Sauve’s struggle to get prisoners their right to vote, I believe that prisoners should have the right to vote. There are three reasons why I believe prisoners should vote, the act of voting emphasizes the value of order and rule of law. It would allow prisoners to be integrated into society, and finally not allowing prisoners to vote would change democracy and change the way democracy works. The act of voting would emphasize the value of order and rule of law. There are three important principles to rule of law. 1. General recognition that the law is necessary in an orderly society. 2. The law apples to everyone, no one is above the law. 3. A person right cannot be taken away in accordance to the law. Therefore allowing prisoners to utilize their right to vote, would allow them to help influence the law and policies about prisons and society in a constructive manner. Also it would be consistent with the rule of law, since as they are still Canadian citizens they have their right to vote. In addition, if we do not allow prisoners to vote we are sending them a message that they aren't part of society and they should remain alienated. Therefore allowing them to