October 17, 2012Dear Sir,In reply to Walton Brown’s statement “Prisoners should have the right to vote” in today’s Bermuda Sun, I would like to know why should an incarcerated person have the right to vote when a person with a previous conviction is not allowed to be a police officer, an Immigration Officer or a Customs Officer and yet, a person with a previous conviction can be a Member of our so called Honourable Parliament enabling them to enact laws that will affect the lives and well being of policemen, Immigration officers and Customs Officers? This truly does not make sense.Mr Brown states: “The benefit is we strengthen our democracy and we give people who don’t currently have the right to vote that right to vote” and he says, “Giving the democratic right to vote to citizens is inherently the right thing to do”.When these incarcerated persons committed their crimes of murder, rape, fraud and mayhem, were they thinking about the democratic rights of those whom they committed their offences against? I really don’t think so. People are usually incarcerated because they ran afoul of the law and we as Bermudians know why most of these people are in prison and it was not because they were good law-abiding citizens. They are people with dubious characters and most of their crimes were intentional. So let’s stop with the bleeding heart scenario here Mr Brown because I don’t buy it. This, in my opinion, has been put forward to boost the voter population for obvious reasons, and has nothing to do with human rights — and as a so called “detractor”, I am saying what I believe.This article also states: “In May, UK Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition Prime Minister David Cameron told MPs that he would resist the European Court ruling on voting rights for prison inmates. Government was warned it could face appeals for compensation which, if successful, could lead to payouts totaling millions of pounds.”I personally agree with Mr Cameron as cunning people will always find loopholes and a way to make a fast dollar. Our laws are flawed enough as it is — not to mention the laws in the US. Take for instance the woman who was awarded millions because SHE spilled hot coffee in her own lap and sued the establishment claiming their coffee was too hot! Absolute nonsense!Mr Editor, I believe that when a person wilfully commits a crime, he or she does so hoping they will not be apprehended. Wilful intent is different from something happening accidentally and anyone that is incarcerated because of wilful intent should not be allowed to vote nor should they be allowed to run for Parliament.PAT FERGUSONWarwick