Are Prisoners Citizens?

In a word, no. For some reason, this simple answer elicits vitriol from people who think otherwise. I had read a very logical reason for this position, and I have since adopted it and extended its implications. One person wrote:

"I know that prisoners lose certain rights such as mobility as an implicit part of imprisonment, but they are still citizens, and retain rights like voting and many rights defined by the Charter."

This assertion is incorrect. I wrote in response to him:

"Prisoners are not citizens. More specifically, incarcerated criminals have severed the contract with the State enough to merit revocation of citizenship rights, albeit leaving a few human rights intrinsic to the conception of prison. Once part of the prison term has been served, the prisoner may negotiate with the State for restoration of citizen status."

A simple, logical answer albeit in need of some expounding.

His statement to me:

"Actually prisoners are citizens, and they are also human beings. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous, and smacks of "revenge justiste [sic]", of which I think the world has had quite enough, thank you very much."

You inhuman monster! You mean they don't deserve basic human rights! You're worse than Hitler! is what this response smacks of.

My reply, expanding on the reasoning behind my position:

"Hmm, no, they are not. The State (in this case, its configuration under Locke) claims its right to govern over citizens on the basis of a social contract (though this claim is ahistorical, let's grant it anyway). The relationship between the citizen and the state can be thought of as a set of contractual obligations, which is consistent with this theory.

Citizenship status is not handed out; you must sign on to it, and consequently take on a set of responsibilities which accommodate your rights that constitute the basis of citizenship. 

What are the rights conferred upon you by being a Canadian citizen? Two of them are the right to vote and the right to work and live in Canada. Non-citizens are not afforded these rights (permanent residents can work on a work visa. Non-citizens can't vote, for obvious reasons). 

In other words, you have a duty to keep to the State if you're to remain a citizen of any country. Obviously, this is to abide by the terms of the contract (the Law) set forward by the state. To break the law, and consequently the contract, results in punishment. Sever the contract severely enough, and said offender is relegated to the status of non-citizen, though this does not mean non-human, contrary to what you implied I implied. 

Those who are subject to the law, but do not possess political power to effect change as stipulated by the contract (the mentally ill/incompetent, children) are not citizens, though they remain bound by law with certain provisions regards their case. For example, a twelve year old criminally charged with theft would be treated as a juvenile offender in court. 

When we speak of a set of contractual obligations between the citizen and the state, we speak of it in a political capacity. That's to say, said citizens are competent enough (by virtue of legal status, mind you) to have a say in how the State's affairs are run. Citizens have political power. They are seen as 'masters' of the State, and are competent enough to uphold the contract enforced by it, as they understand the significance of the responsibilities in accordance with their rights, generally speaking. 

Prisoners do not have a say in governing the civil sphere since they have failed profoundly to uphold these responsibilities which accompany their rights as citizen. Therefore, failure to uphold responsibilities logically results in revocation of citizenship status. To afford prisoners political power inverts the reigning hierarchy and establishes incarcerated individuals as 'masters of the State' on par with that of their interpellated counterparts. 

Indeed, this is a non-sensical scenario, as prison is necessarily a totalitarian institution. The prison, a punitive State instrument, rules over the prisoners, not the other way around. To give them a say in governing the State affords them opportunities to manage their affairs in prison, as they can collectively decide on policies which affect them. Further, it gives them a say in governing the civil sphere. 

They have nominally offended against society, so they are removed from it. This is for the same reason you wouldn't give a foreigner the right to vote. Neither prisoner nor foreigner pay taxes. They do not contribute to the state's upkeep, so it also makes little sense to involve them in public affairs. 

The governed (that is, the citizen) is seen as the best person to manage State affairs to a limited degree, according to our democratic principles. Prisoners are stripped of their political power, and hence their say to manage civil matters, since they have profoundly failed to keep to their end of the contract with the State. This, in a nut-shell, is why prisoners are not citizens, and also an argument against affording prisoners the right to vote. 

What's "revenge justice"? My statement never even remotely implied that."

One other self-righteous dissenter rebuked my initial statement:

"You might want to read about the laws of this country before leaving the house, just to stay out of trouble."

Cute.

My reply: "You may want to read up on political philosophy and theory of justice." 


In fact, there's a book on the evolution behind the Western theory of justice which my sister was reading. I've wanted to borrow it from the library, but it's a rather lengthy tome. I may or may not borrow it. I forget the title, but I'm sure I'll find it. 



His rebuttal again: "I'm sure that will get you some interesting comments from a judge, shoul [sic] you be tried." 



My final response to him: "I'm sure a judge is more concerned with interpretation of the law, not the theory behind its guiding principles. The latter resides in the domain of legal theorists. Your comment is irrelevant; I was commenting on the relation between the citizen and the state, not the judicial process. I see you can't properly refute my account, so you resort to indirect attacks."



In summary, this short debate has made for an interesting excursion into the principles of justice and the theories which constitute them. Better yet, the philosophical issue is illustrated with concrete examples which people like you and I can easily relate to without being lost in abstract jargon. I hope it was relatable, at least. I've seen users on forums who criticize articulate members for being 'verbose' when in fact they explained their positions quite clearly. I'm convinced such attacks are just an admission of the person's failure to properly articulate a logical rebuttal.