Should Prisoners Be Given The Right To Vote
Should prisoners be given the right to vote?
The UK has been accused of breaching the European Convention of Human Rights Article 3 of protocol 1 by having a blanket ban on prisoners voting. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) promotes the idea that convicted prisoners should be allowed to vote and have a right to vote, despite the Conservative party being opposed to this view. As a result the ECHR have being pressuring the Tory’s to bow to their rules for many years. This essay will examine the history behind the debate of prisoners voting and, give reasons in favour of the ban and opposing to the ban, whilst strongly promoting the view that prisoners should not have the right to vote.
In 1870, under the Forfeiture Act, prisoners automatically lost their right to vote. This was then maintained under the 1983 Representation of the People Act. John Hirst, a criminal convicted of manslaughter, opened a case against the UK government in 2005 where the ECHR ruled that the ban on British felons voting was in opposition to the European Convention on Human Rights (Hirst v UK, 2005). The Council of Europe warned the government that if they did not take action and make a ruling on the voting issue, they risked substantial compensation claims. The Liberal democrats were in favour of allowing certain prisoners to vote whereas the Conservative party are against any reform. Dominic Grieves said, “Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences” (Winnett and Whitehead, 2009). People who choose to make irresponsible decisions should not have the responsibility to determine the way the country is run.
On the 10th of February 2011 the House of Commons parliamentarians had an in house debate and voted in support of the backbench movement in favour of upholding the current ban where prisoners lose their right to vote, apart from individuals confined for contempt, default or on remand (Davis,
The UK has been accused of breaching the European Convention of Human Rights Article 3 of protocol 1 by having a blanket ban on prisoners voting. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) promotes the idea that convicted prisoners should be allowed to vote and have a right to vote, despite the Conservative party being opposed to this view. As a result the ECHR have being pressuring the Tory’s to bow to their rules for many years. This essay will examine the history behind the debate of prisoners voting and, give reasons in favour of the ban and opposing to the ban, whilst strongly promoting the view that prisoners should not have the right to vote.
In 1870, under the Forfeiture Act, prisoners automatically lost their right to vote. This was then maintained under the 1983 Representation of the People Act. John Hirst, a criminal convicted of manslaughter, opened a case against the UK government in 2005 where the ECHR ruled that the ban on British felons voting was in opposition to the European Convention on Human Rights (Hirst v UK, 2005). The Council of Europe warned the government that if they did not take action and make a ruling on the voting issue, they risked substantial compensation claims. The Liberal democrats were in favour of allowing certain prisoners to vote whereas the Conservative party are against any reform. Dominic Grieves said, “Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences” (Winnett and Whitehead, 2009). People who choose to make irresponsible decisions should not have the responsibility to determine the way the country is run.
On the 10th of February 2011 the House of Commons parliamentarians had an in house debate and voted in support of the backbench movement in favour of upholding the current ban where prisoners lose their right to vote, apart from individuals confined for contempt, default or on remand (Davis,
References: BBC News., 2010. Labour 's 'votes for paedophiles. BBC News [online] (Last updated 17.27 PM on 19 April 2010) Available at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8630001.stml> [Accessed on 02 February 2014]. BBC News., 2011. Woman jailed for three months for £10 jeans theft. BBC News [online] (Last updated 14.31 PM on 02 February 2011) Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12346383> [Accessed on 01 February 2014]. Davis, D., 2011. Member of Parliament, House of Commons Debate. Vol. 523, col. 494. Available at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0001.html> [Accessed on 02 February 2014]. Hegel, G., 1965. Philosophy of right. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hirst v UK., 2005. Chamber Judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No.2). Council of Europe Press Release. Hollobone, P., 2011. Member of Parliament, House of Commons Debate. Vol. 523, col. 527. Available at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0001.html> [Accessed on 02 February 2014]. Loader, I., 2006. Fall of the platonic: Liberalism, criminology and political responses to crime in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology. Miles, T. J., 2004. Felon disenfranchisement and voter turnout. Journal of Legal Studies. Scott, T. C., 2011. Should prisoners have the right to vote? Available at: <http://www.in-debate.com/2011/10/prisoners-vote/> [Accessed on 01 February 2014]. Straw, J., 2011. Member of Parliament, House of Commons Debates. Vol. 523, col. 504. Available at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0001.html> [Accessed on 02 February 2014]. Streeter, G., 2011. Member of Parliament, House of Commons Debate., vol. 523, col. 505, 10 February 2011. Available at: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110210/debtext/110210-0001.html> [Accessed on 02 February 2014].