Prisoners' rights to vote - a very touchy subject clouded by compensation culture!

The argument surrounding prisoners' rights to vote has been provoking all manner of disgusted responses from members of the public and politicians alike. Both seem clouded by utter contempt that I think they have lost sight of the bigger picture and although I regard myself as centre-right you might be surprised to hear me say that I think prisoners should have a right to vote (gasp :0).

From an ethical point of view it strikes me as one of the few fundamental human rights that you should be able to affect the political process. Now many have pointed out that certain crimes should do and certain crimes should not entitle someone to vote, but starting to make judgements based on crimes committed is a tricky game. Someone behind bars for a murder committed in one nanosecond of clouded judgement isn't necessarily more evil and less worthy of a vote than say a career conman who has spent his life conning OAPs out of their savings. In my opinion anyone in prison is a 'criminal' and hence entitled to a vote, it just so happens some of them will be a 'criminal' for longer than others. 

This ethical standpoint of the 'criminal' issue also makes sense economically. Once you start saying which 'criminals' can and can't vote then you have to spend money to put the systems in place to make sure it happens.

The issue which probably clouds this debate the most is that if rulings go against the government they could be liable to pay somewhere in the region of £100m in damages. This is the one thing that sticks in my throat as this issue has been created and led by people who I believe are economically motivated and not by prisoners who are deeply concerned about their human rights. In fact I'd go so far as to say I reckon that if you take the money out of this debate that 99% of prisoners couldn't give a shit.This raises two questions which I'll leave you with.

Firstly, if there wasn't the issue of paying these 'criminals' £100m would the government and public line be different? Just say the government said 'OK we believe they should have the vote, which we'll now give them, but we're not paying them the £100m', would the public be more willing to accept this issue?

Secondly, if rulings do go against the government and they have to pay these damages, how many 'criminals' given the choice would opt to forgo the payments in return for a personal apology from the PM? Or just say they were given the theoretical option of 'we'll double the compensation payment you are owed but you have to forgo the right to vote', how many of them would opt to take up the offer? (BTW I reckon it would be a very large percentage.)

Discuss (that means please leave a comment - go on you know you want to ;))