Here's one of those rarest of things : a matter in which I side with the government and against the EU. Not being able to influence society is kindof what being in prison is all about, isn't it ? Caveats : the prison population is too high, more effort on rehabilitation and crime prevention, etc., insert usual lefty comments here. :)
Currently, prisoners are not eligible to be included in the register of electors, except for unconvicted prisoners on remand - those in custody pending trial - and those who were sent to prison for contempt of court or for not paying a fine. Since 2005, the UK government has been in breach of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that its blanket ban breached the right to free and fair elections.
Now Justice Secretary David Lidington has reportedly prepared plans which would allow some prisoners to vote. A senior government source told the Sunday Times: "This will only apply to a small number of people who remain on the electoral roll and are let out on day-release. These are not murderers and rapists but prisoners who are serving less than a year who remain on the electoral roll. No-one will be allowed to register to vote if they are still behind bars."
According to the latest figures, only 4,023 prisoners were allowed out on temporary licence in the last three months - just 5% of the prison population of over 85,000. Mr Humber, who represented more than 500 prisoners in their human rights case to win the vote, said that he doubted that extending rights to such a small group of prisoners would satisfy the European court.
He said: "There will no longer be a blanket ban, but giving just a few hundred prisoners the vote seems like the wrong side of the line. In some ways it's a very cynical attempt. It's trying to do the bare minimum and falling short."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41803722
Denying prisoners the vote denies those convicted by a law that they feel is unjust a voice in changing it; for example, people convicted of homosexuality can't seek to change the balance of legislators in favour of those who believe homosexuality shouldn't be a crime.
ReplyDeleteSo, I favour enfranchisement as a defence against regressive governments.
I disagree, First because prison isn't about removing their abilty to influence society, it's about punishing/rehabilitating them for crimes committed.
ReplyDeleteBut most important, from the article :
" These are not murderers and rapists but prisoners who are serving less than a year who remain on the electoral roll. No-one will be allowed to register to vote if they are still behind bars ."
It seems to me that if society has decided someone has committed an offence serious enough that they must be removed from society (for whatever reason), then they shouldn't be allowed to influence that society - almost by definition. You don't imprison someone if you still think they can contribute to (or will not harm) society. With the significant caveats of the effectiveness of prisons in rehabilitation and whether it is actually an appropriate response to particular crimes.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Wrong! We have no problem profiting off their labor (influencing society) but gawd forbid, we try and invest them in it!
ReplyDeleteRay Bernache I am not sure what labour you're referring to, but I can't imagine any labour from prisoners which isn't controlled by the external society. Which would make it fundamentally different to giving them a vote which could change that society in an uncontrolled way.
ReplyDeletePrison is not meant to remove harmful elements from society, but to correct harmful behavior. Especially since a single voice is usually not harmful in democracy and democracy is based on everybody having the same voice, I don't think it's very democratic to exclude anyone from voting.
ReplyDeleteYou could argue that those in a protected psychiatric hospital (as a German speaker, I miss the correct words here, hope u get it anyway) are removed from society for their own and/or society's protection, thus could/should loose their right to vote.
Of course it removes harmful elements from society ! The deprivation of liberty is an explicit part of, well, you know, locking people up and saying they're not allowed out until we say so. Rehabilitation is another function, but it isn't the only one.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor I disagree. I think removing harmful elements is not more then a side effect from trying to rehabilitate. Atonement is, at least in Germany, explicitly the goal of imprisonment. If a prisoners poses a danger to society, he can be explicitly put in preventive detention after being in prison. That thought aside, let's assume that prison is about removing harmful elements from society, for the sake of the argument.
ReplyDeleteGiven that the state should always use the least force necessary in regards of freedoms and rights of its citizen taken away, please explain to me how, say, a fences or a burglars right to vote, presents a danger to society that it needs protection from?
I do not see how a burglar's vote will harm me. The burglar running around free and potentially breaking in my home, I see the harm in that, but his vote for, say, a party seeking more money for prisons, better opportunities for him in the future, possibly preventing him from having to steal again, how does that help either me or him?