Should prisoners have the right to vote?

This isn't a review as such, more of an analysis of a key issue in today's society. Here is what I think of it.
    David Cameron: “"I see no reason why prisoners should have the vote. This is not a situation that I want this country to be in. It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison."

"Makes me physically ill" - David Cameron is firmly against giving prisoners the vote.

Although the idea of prisoner’s having the vote doesn’t quite make me physically ill, I agree with the basic sentiment of the Prime Minister. I too see no reason why prisoners should have the vote, and plenty of reasons why they shouldn’t.

I have no problem with prisoners voting once they’re out of prison. They’ve then repaid their debt to society, and have earned back their right to vote. Until then, however, it is my firm belief that the vote should be unavailable to them, as they have broken their contract with society. If they are unable to participate in a law-abiding society, then why should they be able to have a say in it?

            By committing a crime, a person has proven that they are not fit to comply with the law and therefore are unfit to vote. The vote is a right, but one that only comes with citizenship, and someone serving a sentence has, for the time being, lost their citizenship.

            One of the uses for prison is to deter people from committing crime; meaning that we should limit offenders to as few luxuries as possible. Refusing them the vote will help to act as a deterrent to any criminal serious about wanting to vote, as they will understand that it is a right exclusive to law-abiding citizens. If a criminal who cares about the vote is allowed to vote in prison, there is less of an incentive not to commit crime, increasing the likelihood of their criminal activity.

            I completely accept the argument that giving them the vote would help keep them in touch with society, and that the government would be able to take into consideration the views of those behind bars, however again I feel that when a contract with society is broken, so should the right to have a say in how that society functions. Why should their views influence law-abiding citizens?

            What kind of government would it be that let dangerous criminals, such as murderers and child abductors, have a say in how it is run?

            In conclusion, I suppose there are two choices to make. Should we allow criminals, possibly dangerous and unstable ones, to influence what goes on in the society they have damaged? Or should we wait until they have repaid their debt to society, making prison more of a deterrent and not letting them influence the course of a country with whom they’ve broken their contract? I know which one I’m going for.