In this world (ie. not in a perfect world) prisoners should get the vote.

Thanks for the response, you're doing a lot better than some of the people I see who start off a great topic like this then deteriorate to rubbish within the second round.I will address your arguments, counter yours against mine, and present any new ones if I have any.It has almost no consequencesThis is a very simple thing to form a rebuttal to - because something has little effect on something does not mean it has no effect on something. A negative effect on something is still negative and still an effect, no matter how minuscule.Taking away someone's right to speak is against freedom and true wisdomWhen someone commits a horrible act that renders them incapable of interacting with society, they have given up some of their rights, and one of those rights makes sense - voting in an election is quite similar to interacting with society. Choosing someone to represent your country should be a right that only people who aren't locked away from their country should have. I agree that denying someone the right to vote does take away from their voice of wisdom, however once again, if you commit such acts that deem you detrimental to society, there isn't a very good reason to allow you to continue to preach your wisdom. Nelson Mandela is a great example, however a very, very small percentage of prisoners are as intellectual as him and are as willing to benefit society like him. Also, Mandela had a lot to fight for, and the world in that time period actually needed some serious reshaping. He also lived in South Africa. I agree a lot needs to be changed throughout third world countries, but I'm sure (correct me if I'm wrong) our primary focus is first world countries. There is a big difference between voting for a president or politician, and ending racial discrimination, oppression, and a racial minority rule of a country. If we had to overthrow a tyrannical government, I would be on your side, but we don't, and the main thing prisoners (in first world countries) would accomplish, is giving a boost to politicians who benefit the individuals who are detrimental to other humans, and society.It doesn't well serve any of the purposes of prisonSo people in prison aren't too caught up on wanting to vote - why are you trying to allow them to then? This relates to the "I'm saving an atheist from going to Hell" idea. Locking someone away from society, then allowing them to vote for someone who will run that society is pretty counterproductive. The safety it would provide for the public is not being under the command of a (possibly) politician who will benefit prisoners and people with that type of mentality. Taking away their "freedom" to vote can be considered a punishment - something you said prison is designed for.I have to clarify once again, we're talking about prison, not jail. People in prison are usually harder criminals, whereas people in jail are usually serving time for a misdemeanor.Encouraging participation in society by someone who has been locked away from society is once again pretty counterproductive. Taking away their vote makes them even more rebellious and disengaged towards societyThis is the first point that really makes sense to me. However, the type of person they are, is (probably) not one that wishes to truly be a part of society, if they act in a way that the rest of society deems them to be incapable of interacting with us. I think there would be better ways to rehabilitate prisoners than allow them to vote in an election. Societal rehabilitation is extremely hard, especially in someone who can not act in a way that is acceptable in society.--We work for companies who keep the economy stable and continue/enable the growth and expansion of the human race. Coca-Cola is an exception. If they are not locked up for murdering people, then I don't really know what to say. I know there are criminals around us, however the difference is that those criminals (for the most part) are not detrimental to society in a sense that stops progress of the human race or physically harms someone. Someone who has committed a crime is a criminal. We are not talking about criminals, we are talking about prisoners. There is a difference.Call that a dictatorship all you want, if you are detrimental to society, there is really no logical reason to consider your view on who is running the society, as you are one of the people who has been deemed incapable of interacting with that society. I believe we should earn our freedom to vote. If you are not a decent human being, why should you be able to pick who runs your country or land?Thanks for some good arguments.