MPs from all parties flocked to express their outrage at the enfranchisement of serious offenders, claiming that their constituents would be equally horrified at the European Court of Human Rights judgment that requires the government to act.
Well, I don’t share that outrage. It’s my view that prisoners should have the right to vote, and I’m not proud of the fact that Labour while in government failed to take the action needed to respond to an earlier judgement of the Court. I accept that might not be the popular view, but I served 16 years as a magistrate, I’ve sentenced people to custody (something I never found easy, every occasion the source of great soul-searching and thought), and I’m ashamed to say that it never entered my consciousness that in passing such a sentence, along with denying those convicted their liberty, I was also depriving them of the right to vote. Yet I can’t think of a single case when it was necessary to achieve a sentencing objective, and I’m sure it should never have happened by default.
Prison’s intended to serve a number of purposes: rehabilitation, punishment, protection of the public. But whatever the purpose of sentencing, an important goal must be to reduce the risk of reoffending when the prisoner gets out – as almost all eventually will. That requires programmes within prison that address the causes of offending behaviour and strategies to tackle it; it also requires careful preparation for reintegration on release.
But the more detached prisoners are from society while in jail, the more difficult that reintegration will be. The less they feel they have a stake in society, the more alienated they’ll feel. And the more disengaged they feel, the less willing or able they’ll be to reintegrate.
Disenfranchisement while in prison, denying serving prisoners their say, simply contributes to that. Instead, we should see enfranchisement as an opportunity to engage with prisoners on their civic responsibilities, to acknowledge their individual rights, afford them respect and dignity, and demand them in return. Yet our increasingly punitive attitudes are blinding us to the outcomes we want to achieve.
If we’re serious about rehabilitation and reintegration, if we want to demonstrate the importance of the rule of law, if we want the punishment to fit the crime, we simply cannot justify our failure to act on the judgment of the European Court, or the blanket denial of prisoners’ human rights. There’s sometimes a case for removing liberty, and in itself that’s a significant punishment. But casually disenfranchising prisoners into the bargain is a disproportionate and inappropriate response.
I have a lot of time for Kate but I afraid this is just simply wrong. The subjected was debate at Southport at our Regional Conference, so I won’t repeat what was said but I would point out that at no point did Kate make he views known, despite having the opportunity. When Kate uses the phrase “I accept that might not be the popular view” I can’t help but wonder why when she is so against ‘popular outrage’ she didn’t make her views known, apart from the entire hall applauding those who said very clearly, albeit now obviously not to Kate, why Prisoners should not get the vote.
Giving prisoners the right to vote really is political correctness gone mad. If you gave anyone a choice between not being able to vote in elections and being locked up in prison they would prefer non voting freedom to enfranchised incarceration. In other words, depriving a convict of his or her liberty is a far more serious loss than losing the right to vote. You could argue that prison is a waste of money and we should stop sending convicts there, but the European court apparently thinks that prison should be part of the criminal justice system and depriving a convict of their liberty is recognised as a justified sanction, but depriving them of the right to vote (a much smaller removal of human rights) is not. Jonathan Aitken who knows rather more about this than Kate Green said he opposed the court judgement and pointed out that rapid movement of prisoners and short sentences would make it very difficult to maintain an electoral register of prisoners. He said that the right to send emails to prospective employers should be granted to prisoners, but this kind of sensible reform is being ignored in favour a bizarre obsession with enfranchising people who have been removed from society as a punishment for crimes which they have committed.
Andy – what do you mean “this is just simply wrong”? The European Court Ruling in Hirst v UK was quite clear on the matter – the UK blanket ban on prisoner voting is unlawful. In a more recent case (Frodl v Austria, 2010) the ECHR reiterated and clarified the Hirst ruling: the removal of the right to vote should only be made by the sentencing judge and only then in cases related to electoral fraud. If, Andy, you mean morally wrong, then you need to be able to support that statement. Presumably you mean “if someone breaks the law they lose their right to vote”, as is often the response. Consider then that the majority of people who are found guilty of breaking the law are not sent to prison but given non-custodial sentences. Whilst serving them, those people can still vote. So, should only some law-breakers vote? That’s a nonsense. Most prisoners are released on parole midway through their sentence, that is, they haven’t completed their sentence but are released on licence with conditions attached. During that time, they too are able to vote. Morality is not a condition of enfranchisement, if it were then, arguably, bankers, used car salesmen, adulterers and Daily Mail journalist would be barred. No, Kate isn’t wrong. Her view is supported by most of Europe, Canada, Australian China and South Africa where Nelson Mandela enfranchised prisoners when he came to power. As the South African Government said, every person counts.
Andy – what do you mean “this is just simply wrong”? The European Court Ruling in Hirst v UK was quite clear on the matter – the UK blanket ban on prisoner voting is unlawful. In a more recent case (Frodl v Austria, 2010) the ECHR reiterated and clarified the Hirst ruling: the removal of the right to vote should only be made by the sentencing judge and only then in cases related to electoral fraud. If, Andy, you mean morally wrong, then you need to be able to support that statement. Presumably you mean “if someone breaks the law they lose their right to vote”, as is often the response. Consider then that the majority of people who are found guilty of breaking the law are not sent to prison but given non-custodial sentences. Whilst serving them, those people can still vote. So, should only some law-breakers vote? That’s a nonsense. Most prisoners are released on parole midway through their sentence, that is, they haven’t completed their sentence but are released on licence with conditions attached. During that time, they too are able to vote. Morality is not a condition of enfranchisement, if it were then, arguably, bankers, used car salesmen, adulterers and Daily Mail journalist would be barred. No, Kate isn’t wrong. Her view is supported by most of Europe, Canada, Australian China and South Africa where Nelson Mandela enfranchised prisoners when he came to power. As the South African Government said, every person counts.
I think Kate is quite right. Her case is stated well so I will not reiterate. There is nothing inherently politically correct or incorrect about enfranchisement of prisoners, it is possible to agree or disagree with the statement on it’s merits without being mad one way or the other. To my mind it seems indefensible to disenfranchise prisoners. Few in society beyond those totally reliant on public health care are as much an object of government decisions. Prisoners lives are totally regulated by the penal system, denying them a right to vote seems to me counter to democratic principles of universal enfranchisement and giving a say to those rightfully expected to live under a system. I also find the argument that people lose their freedom when imprisoned and voting is less of a desirable right than freedom, therefore it makes sense to lose the vote a bit muddled. Yes liberty is clearly a highly desirable right, but surely removing one right doesn’t just nullify each right in turn down the chain? Surely the right to vote is an important one and deserves to be debated on it’s own terms rather than in comparison to others?
One this one I’m in agreement with Kate. My one reservation, postal voting within the last constituency before incarceration. The boundaries are in a big enough mess to start with. The last thing needed would be several hundred old lags tipping the balance somewhere!
Julie- Much as I would love to fully debate the issue every time it appears I am afraid that everything I said was said over the weekend in Southport. I am also not feeling very well (had two brain tumours removed some time ago but still suffer now and again) and in light of both not really up for going all the way into it. My dyslexia for some reason also gets worse when I am like this so I think its best just to do as brief as reply as possible – sorry. I think what Richard has put roughly sums up why but if you can I suggest you look at the opinions of Jack Straw. Again sorry to be relatively brief. If you want to hit the doorstep with I want prisoners to vote then please do all I would ask that you do is also read the last part of David’s post and gain a knowledge of the prison population before doing so. I would also point out, in a short and hopefully not long winded version, that at no point did Kate mention the blanket ban that you refer to which is wrong but Jack Straw can given a better view on this.
I am in favour of giving prisoners the vote Some people get a suspended sentence for the same crime that another will go to prison for, yet the former retains their vote, the latter loses it -where is the logic in that?
Alison baffled by the logic your comments are a problem with sentencing not a reason for a criminal to get the vote.
Oscar Wilde was sentenced to 2 years hard labour for gross indecency. His ‘crime’ would not be considered a crime by most people in this country today, but had someone stood for election on a platform of reforming the laws on homosexuality, Wilde would have been unable to vote for that candidate or party. Politicians make laws, and so must be answerable to all the electorate, included those that politicians choose to criminalize.
There are many relevant really good articles on prisoners, law and order and the politics behind it at http://theopinionsite.org Brilliant, if controversial site. I didn’t know about it still my friend told me. It seems to say what everyone else is afraid to say.
but there are obviously plenty of criminals voting already,they are just not in prison. On the other hand, if someone’s liberty IS curtailed because they are being punished and ideally rehabilitated into a better citizen ,being able to vote again upon their release could be part of an incentive in that process?