People are sent to prison to lose their liberty; not their identity.
Juliet Lyon is the director of the Prison Reform Trust
David’s Cameron’s description of today’s judgment by the Supreme Court on prisoners voting as “a great victory for common sense” is surprising given it applies and upholds the principles established in the 2005 Hirst case and subsequent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights – that the UK’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful.
The ruling makes clear that there is not a separate avenue of legal redress under EU law distinct from the process already in train under human rights law. It reinforces the fact that the UK remains in breach of its obligations under the European Convention by persisting with its outdated ban on prisoners voting.
Does the Prime Minister think it is ‘common sense’ for the UK government to flout human rights law, face substantial financial penalties, ignore the advice of prison governors, bishops to, and inspectors of, prisons and take up Parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money in order to stop sentenced prisoners from acting responsibly by voting in democratic elections?
People are sent to prison to lose their liberty; not their identity. The nineteenth century punishment of civic death makes no sense in a twenty first century prison system whose focus is on rehabilitation, resettlement and the prevention of re-offending.
The past president of the Prison Governors’ Association said: “The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release.”
The UK is out of step with all but seven Council of Europe countries, as well as many developed states around the world, when it comes to prisoners voting.
In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts.”
Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place enabling remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population.
The Electoral Commission has set out a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures, the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.
In the nine years since the ban was declared unlawful, successive UK governments have repeatedly sought to delay implementation of the ruling. This has resulted in tens of thousands of sentenced prisoners being unlawful denied their right to vote in local, national and European elections.
Following a further European Court ruling last year, which set out a clear timetable for the government to bring forward legislative proposals to overturn the ban, the Ministry of Justice has published a draft bill with options for enfranchising sentenced prisoners.
A committee of both Houses of Parliament has been established to consider the proposals. It is in the process of taking evidence and will publish its recommendations in due course.
It is hoped common sense will prevail and MPs and ministers take the opportunity to overturn this outdated and uncivilised ban.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
11 Responses to “Prisoners are being unlawfully denied their right to vote”
Sparky
Oh no, how awful. Thieves, murderers, rapists, armed robbers, conmen and hooligans can’t vote. We must right this terrible wrong immediately.
swatnan
This is another time wasting exercise like Votes at 16. Surely we have much better things to do. Villans who commit crimes forfeit their rights.
JR
Rehabilitation should be at the centre of the prison system, sentences are too harsh and the overly politicised view of crime makes change on any level difficult.
However, despite my liberal views on the need for the causes to be treated rather than the symptoms, I don’t agree that prisoners should automatically have the right to vote.
Prisoners have broken the social and civic contract under which they live – rehabilitation is key, but voting is a right that must be earned. This ‘nineteenth century view of civic death’ is also a just one.
Voting is an important right taken for granted by too many – prisoners should have to re-earn the right to vote. This could be whilst they are in prison, but the starting presumption needs to be that those who break the social contract do not get to participate in the choices that affect citizens whilst they are incarcerated.
This is a hugely complex issue, the PM’s sound bites are not helpful. But, equally it is wrong to say glib things such as “People are sent to prison to lose their liberty; not their identity” and criticise discussion of what it takes to be a citizen as ‘out of date’.
Part of the liberty that people lose is the right to choose – it is inconsistent for those who have harmed to impact the lives of others until they are deemed fit to participate in society once more.
The need for participation in politics is one of the most pressing challenges our society currently faces, and rehabilitation of offenders is another. Conflating the issues does little service to either cause, and the current ‘debate’ about voting rights is cheap and solves nothing for anyone.
henrytinsley
16 years olds are hardly in the same category as criminals.
Alec
If something is right or wrong, appropriate arguments will be makeable without recourse to dull appeals to authority [of an institution which was conceived at the same time and from similar justification as when tens of thousands of British soldiers were stationed in West Germany].
British judges appointed by British systems overseen by British politicians elected by the British voters have decided that this is legal, so you’re going to need a lot more than “wait, the ECHR says otherwise!” (especially as we’re talking about people who have done truly awful things) to sway me.
~alec