So prisoners are going to be given the vote. Has the world come to an end?

According to the Daily Mail and its ilk it has. Everyone on both sides of the political fence are up in arms about it on the basis that criminals do not have rights. Everyone on both sides of the fence who hate Europe are up in arms about it on the basis that the EU is trouncing our own democracy.

Here’s my take on the issue and I don’t think the world has ended. It might surprise many but I think the decision is pretty fair.

Voting

Voting is not a human right, otherwise children would have the right. It’s a privilege that the ruling class has allowed to be used by anyone over the age of 18 as part of this thing called democracy. Originally the privilege was limited to male landowners criminal or otherwise but it has been enhanced over the years to include women and those without land and to include everyone regardless of race or religion. As it was enhanced it also placed restrictions such as removing the vote from those convicted of a felony.

The right to vote or suffrage is part of being a citizen. Prisoners lose some civil rights when the get locked up, namely that of freedom. But they don’t lose their citizenship. Unless they get deported too. Part of the reason for locking criminals up is to keep the dangerous ones away from the rest of society but also to punish such transgressors. But not all prisoners are dangerous to society – fine defaulters for instance.

Who can and who can’t vote has been changed constantly since it was first allowed in the 1400s. This change is just another minor update to cope with the changes in society. Nothing can stay fixed for ever. In fact one of the previous changes to the voting laws allowed prisoners to vote – but only for a short time, 1967-1969.

Voting has become to be seen as a human right due to the universality of voting.

ECHR

This decision was made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), a part of the Council of Europe (CoE). The ECHR is not part of the European Union (EU). The CoE was set up in 1949 and worked towards European integration, with particular emphasis on legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation. It’s a separate body, probably with a lot of duplication with the EU, but it’s not the EU with its aim of taking over the democracy of individual member states.

John Hirst vs UK

The case that led to the decision by the ECHR was originally brought by John Hirst. He is a convicted murderer who has now been released. Many commentators call him a low life and deserving of the death penalty, but that’s their opinions which I suppose they have a point about considering his upbringing in a Barnardos home which led to his criminal life ending with his murder conviction for killing his landlady. Some of the people mentioned by Winston Smith in his blog probably attract the same opinions.

What ever the case about John Hirst’s personality, he took the case of the blanket ban on prisoners to the high court. When he lost in 2001, he took the case to the ECHR. In 2006 the ECHR decided in his favour that the ban was against the human rights of prisoners. What they didn’t say is that all prisoners had to have the vote. What they said was that the government of the time (Labour) had to make a decision as to who and who wasn’t allowed to vote. In other words they had to lift the blanket ban and decide on a case by case basis – somehow.

This is similar to many other European countries where prisoners are allowed to vote to varying degrees. Germany, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands allow prisoners to vote. Austria, France and Italy and 9 others only allow some prisoners to vote. The UK is with Ireland and Belgium in denying suffrage to all prisoners.

There are many ways in the decision can be made. It can be made by the judge on a case by case basis. It could be decided on the length of the sentence, or the severity of the crime. They could be allowed to vote after they have used up their tariff but still kept in prison by the parole board. The government could even decide to remove the vote for life from some prisoners even when they have left prison. In no way do they have to give the right to vote to murders, pedophiles, rapists, or those who commit other serious crimes. So it will not lead to situations like this.

Recent decision

So the Labour government had to make a decision as to how to decide which prisoners would be allowed to vote. They did the usual thing of asking for consultations but it has now closed and they still didn’t get round to say that they would sort out the issue. Basically they sat on their arse for over five years and did nothing. They probably hoped that the issue would go away. Well it did for Labour because they left it in the hands of the coalition government to sort out. I suspect that Labour, being led by someone who was famous for not making a decision, couldn’t decide which was worse – change the law and get hit by a huge wave of public opinion or default to the ECHR. They seem to have chosen the latter. Most, sorry, all politicians are scared of public opinion to the extent that they will make a decision based on not getting kicked out of government before the needs of the country.

The current government has now said that they will sort out the mess left by Labour.

Democracy

Some final thoughts. Has the ECHR decision overridden our democracy? No I don’t think so. For one thing democracy is not that big a deal. For another this is about civil rights and governments cannot trounce all over them. Governments are not above the law. The laws they make must also be fair and proportionate. If the UK government was exempt it might lead to the situation in Zimbabwe where the government there ignores the law. The UK government signed up to the principles of the CoE in 1949 and has followed many of its decisions since then. Why is the voting right any different? Previous governments have already signed away some aspects of the government control so why does the imposition of votes to some prisoners suddenly change everything. Even if the UK left Europe it would still be controlled by it just the same way that developing countries are controlled by more powerful states.

Some say that we didn’t vote to be part of the CoE and that it’s unelected judges cannot control how the UK makes its decisions. But there are many aspects of modern life which affect the UK but which we didn’t vote for. Some are external factors such as international trade laws and with the internet other country’s laws. Others are internal such as going to war against Iraq. So not everything can be voted on. Democracy is not a perfect solution.

There are many things which the government decides to do which the majority of the population doesn’t like, but due to the way democracy is set up, they don’t have a say in. There are many laws introduced, approx 3000 during Labour’s term in office, which the population didn’t vote for and would probably vote against if given the choice. The proponents of democracy say that we voted in our MP to vote on our behalf. I say we vote in our MPs to vote as they like even it including voting that the moon is made of cheese.

* We’ve voted for criminals in parliment so why can’t criminals vote for them too.

zaphod November 11, 2010 at 00:17

I don’t see the point in being angry with prisoners. They’ve been caught.
Save your anger for those who haven’t.
And even if you are angry, denying
them the vote isn’t much of a punishment.

It’s not about Hirst. (“Ad hominen.”)

Refusing them the vote only cheapens our democracy.
They should all have
the vote. All. Universal suffrage is easier than deciding where to draw a
line.

Now, are there any real problems to worry about?

electro-kevin
November 4, 2010 at 10:25

And (reversing the question posted here) for years prisoners had their
voting rights suspended …

… did the World come to an end ?

Couldn’t JHR have put his state funded education to use bettering the lot
of little old ladies struggling on miserly state pensions ?

electro-kevin
November 4, 2010 at 10:12

Another thin-ended wedge.

I really can’t see the problem with denying a prisoner his right to vote.
The punishment element of a prison sentence (and therefore the deterent) is
the suspension of personal liberty. This (along with rehabilitation) is what
prison is meant to be about.

I can see the argument being pushed to the degree that prison is abolished
because it infringes human rights. And the matter of the devolvement of legal
power to the ECHR (ie whether or not it’s to do with the EU) is a matter of
semantics. We’ve given up an awful lot of control. Your justification for the
usurpation our own judicial process is to question the trustworthy-ness of our
country and it’s establishment.

Your response to very reasonable concerns that this is undemocratic is to
say ” Democracy ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.”

So how far are you prepared to subsume our country ?

Your response to the law-abinding – who see the moral repugnance of their
views (and their representatives) being put second to convicted criminals in
an unaccountable supra-national court no less – would doubt-less be to label
them ‘ a bit tabloid’ and simplistic.

I would hope you’d be at least as charitable with their feelings and
respectul of their concerns as you are with Jailhouse Lawyer’s (AKA John
Hurst)

JuliaM November 4,
2010 at 08:46

” I would warrant that there are very few of us who have not collected
three points on our driving licence in the last ten years. This is a criminal
offence.”

*holds up hand* Not me!

And it’s quite clear that the loss of a vote is tied up with the loss of
liberty. Good grief, we aren’t imprisoning people for three points on the
licence! We aren’t even imprisoning people for ABH in some instances!

Hysteria isn’t going to help.

SadButMadLad November 4, 2010 at 09:49

Hysteria is not what should be happening. It’s not an earth shattering
event.

All that will happen is that ***SOME*** prisoners will be given the
vote.

Everyone seems to be in hysterics because they think that ALL prisoners
will be given the vote. No matter what John Hirst says, it will not be all
prisoners. At the end of the day its most likely that only a select few,
those who haven’t paid their fine for dropping litter, those on remand,
maybe those whose crimes are non-violent, maybe those whose sentence is
shorter than the election period (a few weeks) will be allowed to vote.

This is pretty much the same as giving well behaved prisoners their TVs
and other minor luxuries.

Lettuce Prey
November 4, 2010 at 08:08

Civic rights are being conflated into Human Rights, Human ‘wants’ are being
conflated into Human Rights – at this rate having a full Sky ‘Sports Package’
will be a Human Right by this time next year, and we will be invading Yemen on
the grounds that they deny their citizens access to the Sky Sports
Package.

Guthrum November 4, 2010 at 07:35

Some commentators seem unable to separate the criminality from the
principle of citizenship.

If we are going to deprive criminals of the right to vote we are almost all
screwed. I would warrant that there are very few of us who have not collected
three points on our driving licence in the last ten years. This is a criminal
offence. I was told this in no uncertain terms when I replied ‘none’ on my
application to renew my shotgun permit, as I had omitted my three points for
doing 35 mph in Northampton at 5am in the morning. I was also threatened with
prosecution for making a false declaration !

We are all criminals to a greater or lesser degree according to the State,
because they have a burning need to open a file on us all.

The paradox for me is that while prisoners are regaining their civil
rights, I have a Judge who is going to decide whether I can be an active
member of a political party in the next six weeks.

JuliaM November 4,
2010 at 05:46

“… led to his criminal life ending with his murder conviction for
killing his landlady.”

Technical point – he’s not a murderer (except of our fond imagining that we
have any self-determinism left), having been convicted of manslaughter.

JuliaM November 4,
2010 at 05:44

Agree with Odin’s Raven. This is the thin end of the wedge. Next up, the
‘right’ to have unrestricted reading materials, conjugal visits, etc…

Odin’s Raven
November 4, 2010 at 00:32

Soon we might as well short circuit the whole farce, remove any honest
people and leave only the criminals voting for each other.

Sok November 3, 2010 at 22:46

Victorian prison buildings and a Victorian philosophy of punishment .