Westminster is getting its collective knickers in a knot today over the issue of prisoner voting rights.
On the one side we have the European Court of Human Rights which suggests (nae, demands!) that the UK comply with their view that denying prisoners a vote in UK elections – at all levels – represents a breach of their human rights. Â Failure to comply will result in… well, I’m not sure, to be honest. Â Apparently the prisoners can sue for compensation, though how you put a monetary value on the freedom to vote I don’t know.
Anyway, on the other side we have Tory MP David Davies leading the charge, ably supported by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, arguing that when prisoners break their contract with society by committing a crime and are subsequently incarcerated, they give up their right to vote for the duration of their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Â Further, they argue, that while prisoners are of course covered by the Convention on Human Rights, that only extends as far as being fed and treated with respect – it does not extend to their ability to determine the government of the day. Â Finally, neither seems to think the UK Government should be held to ransom by the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that “democratically elected lawmakers” of a sovereign state should have more say over their electoral arrangements than unelected judges and law-interpreters.
The upshot of it, as far as I can gather, is that we have a motion in parliament on the issue, and that both government and opposition front benches have been instructed to abstain in the vote while backbenchers have a free vote, though the vote itself is non-binding on the government.  David Cameron and the Conservative element of the government have signalled their displeasure with the European Court’s decision, though suggest that the UK has no choice but to comply, while the Liberal Democrats are likely to be (though I haven’t seen this in print) more sympathetic to prisoners’ claims.
Wherever you stand on the issue of prisoner voting rights (and though I tend to be more of a “rehabilitation-ist” than a “punish-punish-punish” type, I agree with the PM – it makes me a little ill to think that a prisoner who has no respect for the rights of others when s/he murders/rapes/assaults/burgles another citizen should be allowed to vote) this case opens up a lot of constitutional questions which the UK and the European Union are not prepared for.
In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights? Â If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance? Â When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise? Â What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?
Needless to say, I’m just asking the questions – I don’t have all (or indeed, any) of the answers. Â Perhaps some of our legal-minded colleagues may shed some light? Â Either way, I watch this process unfold and await the outcome with some interest.
#1 by Scott on February 10, 2011 - 5:05 pm
In the following I ignore the political and social dimension but look merely at the legal.
As things stand we have an absolute bar on prsioner voting under the Representation of the People Act 1983, s 3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/3. This means the following.
Alf was jailed for murder 25 years ago. He has been released this week on licence. He can vote from the point of release.
Bert is an OAP who has been drunk and breached the peace. He has been jailed for 30 days and is currently inside. He cannot vote because he is a prisoner.
I find this odd. But I might be alone in that.
The absolute bar is based purely on the time one is detained in prison. There is no nuance to take account of the offences, and the discourse involves consideration of the worst cases (rapists, murderers &c) ignoring the fact that the majority of people in prison are not there for these very serious offences.
What the European Court of Human Rights seeks in Hirst (although I must confess I find the later cases more opaque) is a divorcing of the deprivation of the liberty from necessarily meaning a deprivation of the right to vote. The ideal solution to the problem would be to have the right to vote considered as one aspect of the sentence and there would be nothing to stop a court depriving a person of the right to vote for a longer period than he or she is deprived of liberty.
Legally, I find it odd that parliamentarians are arguing that because these people have broken the law they should be deprived of their vote (what of those on community sentences or those fined or those admonished or those on licence?) while then proposing to break the law at a UK level. Showing a lack of respect for the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights sends out the wrong message, giving solace to those states with real human rights abuses and losing the UK moral authority to criticise – could these states then argue well, if the UK don’t abide why should we?
The dog that hasn’t barked in the discourse on the topic is the fact that this is not just a Strasbourg decision. Four years ago the matter was raised and decided in the Scottish courts in relation to consideration for the 2007 Holyrood elections. The Inner House of the Court of Session (sitting as a Regsitration Appeal Court) declared that s 3 of the RPA was incompatible with the ECHR – specifically in the context of the Holyrood elections. This is the only declaration of incompatibility issued by a senior Scottish civil court and it has been ignored. Indeed, today the Attorney general appeared to argue that holyrood elections were not covered by the HIrst ruling – apparently in ignorance of Smith v Scott (and the point was not raised with him due to the ignorance of our elected representatives). I cannot imagine that a pronouncement from the Court of Appeal in England and Wales would have been treated similarly. BUt it appears that commentators don’t want to deal with the legal niceties here.
There may be an argument for compensation being payable via the domestic courts (although this argument is tenuous and is merely put out there for those with more expertise to shoot down). Section 6 of the Human Rights ACt provides that public authorities must act in accordance with the ECHR. The Electoral Registration Officers in Scotland cannot because s 3 RPA will not allow them to register prisoners or to allow prisoners the vote (eg a person convicted after the drawing up of the register might try to apply for a postal vote). If acting incompatibly with ECHR and there is a loss to the citizen s 8 of the Human Rights ACt allows a court to award compensation. Will an enterprising lawyer try to raise such actions for his or her clients given that the UK government has had 4 years to comply with the previous Court of Session decision. I think the non-compliance (and the utterances of Jack Straw today justifying his non-compliance with Hirst) might prompt a Scottish judge to make a point. But as I said, this is open for argument.
#2 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 10:13 pm
Yeah – I think there is perhaps room for consideration of differences in sentence. However, whether you are imprisoned for 30 days or 25 years, your disrespect for the law is equally apparent. I know the severity of your crime is different… if you are in prison you’ve lost your liberty to act in the way in which you desire, but once you have been released from prison, you’ve got that liberty back, and have returned to society, and your opportunity to vote is returned.
In short, I understand your point. And why. But I’m not convinced. And I’m hugely not convinced that you can put a price on the opportunity to vote for compensation…
#3 by Scott on February 10, 2011 - 11:07 pm
BUt your disrespect for the law is equally apparent if you are sentenced to community service or are fined or even admonished. A finding of guilt is a finding of guilt. or what about contract breakers. You are contracted to provide service X. You do not do so. You break the law. Should you be punished by having your vote removed? This notion that people breaking the law should be deprived of the vote that underpinned some of the discourse today is an over-statement. Uncoupling that notion lies at the heart of the debate here. People break criminal laws regularly. Forms not timeously submitted by company directors. That’s a criminal offence. Failure to register a security granted by a company timeously is also a criminal offence. Speeding is a criminal offence. Are these enough to merit deprivation of the vote? And what makes a £1 million fine any different substantively from a person sentence to 30 days imprisonment? Who would society view as more culpable? Or a person given 1500 hours of community service contrasted with a person who is sentenced to a week in prison. Whose wrongdoing is worse? But in each case the person locked up is deprived of the vote and the other keeps it – no matter what the offence (be it assault or theft or a sexual offence). The deprivation of liberty is a punishment in itself. Why does it necessarily involve a deprivation of other rights, including the right to vote, for the duration of the period the person is detained? That lies at the heart of the legal argument. There is no necessary correlation between the two. That is fundamental here. The rationale for the rule chooses an arbitrary distinction, that does not necessarily relate directly to culpability. Once the proposition that there is no necessary correlation is accepted then the point that deprivation of the right to vote can exceed deprivation of liberty follows. Thus, for example, it could be argued that the right to vote be withheld while someone is on parole (dependent on the nature of the crime), or a person fined £1 million be deprived of the right to vote for a particular period.
The arguments used in the debates on this are framed in absolutes. I do not think that is helpful.
#4 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 7:49 am
I think the first part of this is right, and here is where you whack me with impressive legalistic arguments. But my defence would be that if a judge deems your offence to be serious enough to merit a suspension of your liberty then that suspension of liberty should extend to the liberty to vote. I don’t see that as inconsistent – but I suppose that is a different argument to the “you break the law, you shouldn’t be allowed to make the law” David Davis line (which, I guess, IS inconsistent with Lords who have been in prison still being Lords, but that is another debate).
But where I guess it is inconsistent is that those who break the law and who have not been given prison sentences do not have their right to vote revoked. I’m not sure where to go with the argument, other than I think liberty and voting are intrinsically bound together (see just about any liberal thinker – Mill, Rousseau, Locke…). To be free means to have the vote. If your liberty is revoked… then I guess it makes sense to revoke your ability to vote as well, at least for the duration of your incarceration.
I’m not closed minded on this. I’ve just been failed to be persuaded by the ECHR case that voting is a human right that prisoners should be entitled to.
#5 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 9:56 am
As I said above the moral and social arguments lie elsewhere. I don’t feel well-placed to comment on them, but note that – for example, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the former Lord Chancellor, argued that the rehabilitative process is enhanced by conferring the right to vote, and in some cases this could be done during the sentence.
Legalistically though the European Court of Human Rights has decided that the right does extend. The right is conferred by the protocol. The UK signed up to the protocol. The Uk signed up to the ECHR and the agreement to abide by European Court of Human Rights decisions. By failing to do so the Uk Parliament is showing a disrespect for the rule of law – and loses some moral authority in arguments elsewhere.
The European Court is applying minimum standards across Europe. Your argument in relation to the deprivation of liberty is dependent on acceptance that the deprivation of liberty is objectively justifiable. For example, countr Dystopia is a signatory to the ECHR. The regime puts in place legislation which allows the detention and conviction of political opponents for various “crimes against the state”.The convictions are recognised to be political. Dystopia has a rule that convicted prisoners cannot vote. The European Court of Human Rights would sustain an objection in this case based on the right granted in the protocol. Where would you stand in that case?
#6 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 10:36 am
I knew someone would raise political prisoners. And to be honest, I don’t know the answer – that’s a tricky situation. But yes, I fully admit that raises problems with my position. But the political fall out from such a situation is likely to result in MORE votes for the incarcerated prisoner’s preferred party (see: Sinn Fein) than if they had not been imprisoned. I know that’s not the same issue, but the outcome is perhaps better for their political preference.
Your legal point about the UK Parly losing legitimacy interests me – if only because I’m not convinced about the legitimacy of the ECHR. But given we signed up to it, we have put ourselves in a position where we should respect its position. But that then means diminishing the sovereignty of Parliament (now granted, as a independent-ist, I have issues with that sovereignty anyway, but that’s a side issue here – the Parliament sees itself as sovereign).
#7 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 11:00 am
The first part of your answer avoids the question. This depends on free elections, free press, and other freedoms to ensure that people know what the position is. Conveniently all of the freedoms to ensure this are found in the ECHR. An ECHR that imposes minimum standards of behaviour throughout Europe.
On your second paragraph the UK parliament is not absolutely sovereign. It never was – given that the Act of Union limited its power to legislate in various areas, an argument supported regularly by the courts (including Lord Hope in the House of Lords in Lord Gray’s case during the Scotland Act debates). It has certainly not been sovereign since 1973 when the European Communities Act meant the UK signed up to a Treaty which recognised the supremacy of European law in matters of European Community (now Union) competence – and as was demonstrated during the Factortame case where the Merchant Shipping Act was struck down as being contrary to EU law.
I am curious on your point that the ECHR does not have legitimacy? The Uk signs up to various treaties imposing international obligations (including for example conventions on carriage of goods, conventions on the rights of children, conventions to regulate the conflicts of law rules relevant to international disputes, and UN treaties). Some are incorporated into dfomestic law, some are left in the international sphere. Is it specifically the ECHR you have a problem with, or the legitimacy of these other treaties agreed by the UK government on behalf of the nation? And is there any issue of legitimacy when thethe provisions have been incorporated into domestic law? Or when the UK has agreed to a judicial process as part of the obligations (the UK for example has signed up to the INternational Criminal Court, and to the INternational Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights)?
#8 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 5:10 pm
Obviously I am no expert on law, but it is my view that much of international law is still being written. Which means to say that if treaties and conventions are incorporated into the domestic law of a sovereign nation then they do, of course, have legitimacy. Where they remain simply “conventions” – that is, either un-ratified or ratified and un-incorporated into domestic law – then they do lack a measure of legitimacy yes.
So I guess the ECHR perhaps doesn’t fit in with that, since the UK has incorporated most of it into domestic law? I’m asking, rather than telling here, since I’m not 100% sure of the facts here. But in the main, my position would be that the UK Parliament would retain sovereignty in this area, since they maintain the right to withdraw from the ECHR (and indeed, the EU, and other international bodies). I think the point really was that it seems a little… undemocratic, if that is the right word, for decisions to be taken by unelected judges and enforced by elected politicians – should be the other way round.
#9 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 10:01 am
One other point – the deprivation of the vote supported by the Commons yesterday does not apply to those on remand (who have been deprived of their liberty but not their right to vote for the good reason that they have not been convicted – but may have been deemed a sufficient threat to society that bail has not been granted). Additionally, the deprivation of the vote does not apply where the conviction is based on certain contempts of court. The current rule is inconsistent, and its justification (as explained in the speeches yesterday) extends ways beyond the limitations RPA s 3 provides. If you can uncouple the deprivation of liberty and the right to vote in these cases why not elsewhere?
#10 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 10:38 am
That’s true – and obviously, the vote yesterday, and the discussion, is inconclusive (and non-binding).
I think the main point is really that a proper, government-sponsored debate with full evidence from legal experts is required.
#11 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 11:05 am
Your point is of course dependent on MPs wanting to know what the legal position is, and being prepared to accept it and respond to it. The MPs had detailed evidence provided to the Constitutional Select Committee last week in a session chaired by Eleanor Laing. Aidan O’Neill QC, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and another person whose name escapes me, gave 2 hours of evidence on the issue referring to case law (including the Scottish case) and ECHR obligations. The committee published a report on this evidence earlier in the week. Various anomalies were identified. MPs ignored it. Some of them are quite proud to do so. And as they pontificate that lawmakers should not be lawbreakers they advocate the breaking of the law.
#12 by An Duine Gruamach on February 10, 2011 - 5:46 pm
I’d find engaging with the issue easier if the body voting on this was not itself stuffed to the rafters with nepotists, frauds and war criminals.
#13 by Indy on February 10, 2011 - 5:52 pm
Personally I don’t see why prisoners shouldn’t be able to vote. Don’t really get all the outrage to be honest. I doubt if many of them would actually exercise that right however.
#14 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 6:02 pm
Same for me Indy, I really don’t get what the problem is unless it’s something as ungainly as the cost and inconvenience of arranging voting booths in prisons.
I find much of the rhetoric (mostly from the hang ’em and flog ’em Tory circles) really quite unsettling.
#15 by cynicalHighlander on February 10, 2011 - 6:41 pm
I also have no problem with them voting I suspect why politician are against is the general knee jerk abhorrence by the general public.
#16 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 10:16 pm
I’m not a “hang ’em and flog ’em Tory. I do think that it is consistent to remove someone’s right to vote when you remove their liberty to roam the streets. I’m not convinced that it reduced a prisoner’s quality of life dramatically if they are denied the right to vote, certainly not in the same fashion than some have reduced their victim’s quality of life.
#17 by Una on February 11, 2011 - 1:04 am
I find myself in agreement with Malc here. I don’t see any reason why removing liberty should not include removing the right to vote. There are, of course, people on short sentences who may lose the vote when those on community sentences for similar crimes do not, but perhaps we should be looking at whether they should be imprisoned at all rather than whether they should get the vote. On this issue I support Kenny Macaskill’s efforts to reduce incarcerations for petty crimes. But ultimately there are no absolutes in criminal law and you have to draw artificial lines somewhere.
#18 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 7:51 am
“I find myself in agreement with Malc here.”
First time for everything eh? In return, I should say I agree with your latter point – lets look at sentencing for “minor” offences and see whether incarceration is the right way of punishing/rehabilitating criminals.
#19 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 9:47 am
Of course not being able to vote doesn’t reduce anybody’s quality of life – and what kind of quality of life do prisoners have anyway?
(I know there are people who will say well they get to watch flat screen telly and I can’t afford that blah blah. Yes they get to watch float screen telly – in prison! The reason the prison service provides them with TVs is not to give them a good quality of life but to stop them going beserk and smashing up the place.)
But the point of the matter for me is that being a criminal does not actually make you sub-human. They are being punished for the crimes they have committed by being deprived of their liberty, not their humanity. If you believe that being able to vote is a human right, not a privilege, then it is evident that prisoners are beingdeprived of a human right albeit one that most of them would not exercise.
And if you take the position that voting is a privilege not a right then where does that leave us?
#20 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 10:30 am
I agree that being a prisoner does not make you sub-human!
But you slightly misrepresent me. I don’t believe that being able to vote is a human right, I believe it to be a democratic right – subject to your agreement to and compliance with the social contract (that is, the law of the land). Should that be negated – that is, should you fall foul of the law and subsequently be incarcerated, I believe your democratic right should be suspended, along with your liberty, for the period determined by the court.
So I take the view that voting is both a right (democratic right, not human right) and a privilege of living in a democratic society and abiding by the laws of that society.
#21 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 11:08 am
I wasn’t saying you thought that but clearly a lot of MPs do – and probably a lot of members of the public too.
To me it all depends, as you say, on whether you think voting is a human right or if it is a privelige that can be withdrawn.
If we decide it is a privilege then we need to stop talking about it as a right.
It’s maybe just a semantic point but to me something is either a privelige or a right, it can’t actually be both.
#22 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 11:21 am
It’s not semantics. A legal scholar, Hohfeld, was particularly concerned about these distinctions. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2005/9.html is quite good at explaining what he meant – but is very technical.
#23 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 11:34 am
Whoa, that’s a bit heavy for me!
I just think, personally, that human rights are universal. (In principle anyway). Whereas a privelige is not universal. By definition a privelige is something that only some people have and others do not.
So I don’t see how something can be both a privelige and a right.
#24 by CassiusClaymore on February 10, 2011 - 6:12 pm
Constitutionally, the UK can ignore the ECHR if it likes. (And the UN, and the EU etc.) What exactly are they going to do about it? Write a strongly worded letter? This may be considered politically or diplomatically unacceptable but that’s the legal position as far as England and Wales is concerned. In Scotland, given that we went further and effectively enacted the ECHR, we’d perhaps have to amend that act to carve out voting and prevent challenge in the domestic courts. No reason why that can’t be done if our wonderful tribunes so choose.
On a point of principle, prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The fact that they’re not currently allowed to do so is well known, so they should really be factoring that into their thinking when they decide to commit the relevant crime. Yes, removal of voting rights might be considered to be an infringement on personal liberty but surely it is insignificant compared with being deprived of your freedom by being imprisoned in the first place!
I can see this becoming a real issue for Labour. So many of their main players are getting locked up now – Morley, Chaytor, Devine, Moran (soon) that it might start to affect election results! (I think Lord Watson of Swan Vestas is out now, but since he’s a peer he can’t vote anyway)
CC
#25 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 6:52 pm
CC,
I actually agree with your “point of principle” though I take Scott’s points about severity on board. You can spend 25 years in prison for murder, be released the day before election day and be able to vote, but go to jail the week before it for 10 days for a minor offence and be barred from voting.
But I agree with the principle – your liberty to move and act freely is suspended when you commit an offence and are incarcerated for it. Voting is a part of that liberty. I don’t see it as distinct – it is surely not a more fundamental human right than freedom of movement, and yet suspension of that right is a given when you commit a serious offence.
#26 by James on February 10, 2011 - 7:48 pm
There are a few issues smeared in together here.
1. The state of the law I’ll leave to our experts.
2. The withdrawal of the right to vote is a punishment. Oh no it isn’t. For those prisoners who feel strongly about it it’s an instrument of alienation from democracy, not punishment. Those of us who believe in rehabilitation should support the engagement of prisoners with the process, tied in with education offered inside. I’d like to see the parties having to canvass prisoners and deal with some tough questions.
3. Prisoners are likely to vote “badly”, to elect prison-doesn’t-work candidates or extremists. The Sunday Post had a poll which suggested otherwise – but sadly they’re not online so I can’t find it. But even if it were the case, it would also be an argument for blocking anyone from voting for those parties, so pretty undemocratic.
4. The public don’t think prisoners should vote. But if you asked them if bankers in receipt of multimillion bonuses who avoid tax should have the vote, they’d say no too. In fact, if you asked them if MPs who claimed for too many biscuits should have a vote they’d say no. It just means “I don’t like them” when such questions get asked.
#27 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 9:20 pm
James:
1. Agreed!
2. I’m coming from a slightly different position here. The withdrawal of the right to vote isn’t a punishment in itself. The denial of liberty to those who commit crimes against society is the punishment. Part of that liberty is the opportunity to vote. You can call it alienation from democracy if you want, but if you have broken the law, you have alienated yourself from that democracy. If you don’t respect the law, why should you be allowed to help choose those who make it? I see voting as a right, a responsibility and a privilege. I don’t see prisoners as deserving of that privilege, but I accept the point that it may help to rehabilitate and provide a sense of responsibility. But we can educate about democracy inside then allow prisoners to vote when they are outside – I don’t think that is an inconsistent position to hold.
3. I agree – that’s nonsense.
4. I agree – public opinion isn’t the be all and end all in this. But in this case, I do agree with the majority opinion.
#28 by Tom Gallagher on February 10, 2011 - 9:18 pm
All-too-typical posting from the lotus eaters of the caledonian blogosphere: -for a week there has been total blackout across Scottish cyberspace about the brutal slaying of Reamonn Gormley from High Blantyre. It prompted 2,000 horrified locals, cut adrift by the state services they pay through the nose for, to go out and spontaneously protest. But these are little people, munchkins from Lanarkshire, the siberia of Scotland. What does their security or well-being count for when the constiutuional queswtion has still to be resolved.
But when there is an inkling of a chance that the Westminster village might connect with such people’s concerns and tell the judicial gaulietiers from the Council of europe where to put their insistence on votes for prisoners, Malc, Jeff, Indy and no doubt star rhetoricians like Joan McAlpine almost burst a gut with furious indignation .
Unless you manage to do a post-1920Northern Ireland, and disenfranchise the people of Lanarkshire, your contemptuous attitude to the feelings of ordinary Scots, means that yes you’ll have your glorious independence – in your dreams of course!
#29 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 9:28 pm
Look Tom – I write posts sporadically at best. This interested me – that’s all. There are lots of things I don’t write about. I’m sorry that you think I’m ignoring something because I think it insignificant – that’s simply not true. I have limited time to blog – I’ve written what, 2 posts this year? In reality, I happened to see this on the news at the same time as I was on the computer – that’s the confluence of events that led to this post.
#30 by Jeff on February 10, 2011 - 9:49 pm
Tom,
Â
Malc has answered you more politely than you perhaps deserve. I shall strive to do the same.
Â
(1) I personally hadn’t heard about the sad news regarding young Reamonn Gormley before reading your dribbling mess of a comment.
Â
(2) It seems to have been a terrible incident but what exactly were you hoping to read on this blog? On any blog?
Â
(3) The ‘constitutional question’ barely gets a look in here at Better Nation. Indeed we occasionally get berated for its lack of focus.
Â
(4) Why are you so angry?
#31 by James on February 10, 2011 - 10:35 pm
Giving citizens the vote by legal due process makes people “gauleiters”? Have you heard of Godwin’s law?
It’s properly insulting to the case you raise to say the absence of a blog post here is of any concern to the people involved. Get some perspective.
#32 by Tom Gallagher on February 10, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Thanks Malc for the swift and candid response. It’s the constitutional and legal never land issues that get the most of the Scottish cyber community busy tapping out their electronic missives – far more than in any corner of these islands . it’s a sure clue that in an independent Scotland (even more than a devolved one) it will be the lawyers, civil servants, quangos and rhetorcal politicans who will tie things down securely. There’s a cull of prmising young lives likes that of reamon Gormley happening year after year in Scotland but they may as well be penguins in Antarctica as far as the bien pensants of the cyber agora are concerned.
#33 by Malc on February 10, 2011 - 10:04 pm
Again Tom, I’m sorry that you think we’re being disrespectful – but, as Jeff mentions, this is a blog, a politics blog. It’s not a newspaper or news site. We don’t do news – we do consideration of politics, of partisan issues, of budgets… yeah – the boring, constitutional, hard politics that the wider public aren’t especially interested in. But that’s what we do – its a niche, a blog which WE are interested in.
So yeah, we’ll cover constitutional & political stuff, but that’s not surprising – I’m a politics PhD student examining it, James works at Holyrood and Jeff’s original blog was a Holyrood election one. I can’t speak for the rest of the Scottish blogosphere – but that’s us. And we’re candid about that on our contributors page – so it shouldn’t really be a surprise.
I’m sorry about the case – but here’s a thought. If you have something you want out there, a reasoned and structured case you want to make, we’ll publish it as a guest post – in your name. Interested?
#34 by Holebender on February 11, 2011 - 6:27 am
Malc @ #12, how can voting be both a right and a privilege?
#35 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 8:03 am
I guess you are suggesting the two are not compatible? That something can’t be a right and a privilege?
As much as you perhaps don’t like him, you could make the case that Prince Charles’ position as heir to the throne is a right (as eldest son of the monarch) but it is also a position of privilege. Maybe that’s not a great example – but you get the point.
Voting for me IS a right – it is part of freedom and liberty etc. But for me it is also a privilege, and something which should not be taken for granted.
#36 by Tom Gallagher on February 11, 2011 - 12:30 pm
Hello Jeff,
If I’m angry it’s because you really help to ruin the chances for ‘a Better nation’ arising in Scotland by negelcting to ask what does an event like the slaying of Reamonn Gorman indicate about the real condition of Scotland. its only celebrity criminal cases like the Tommy Sheridan shlock horror epic or ones that have a melodramatic political slant like Lockerbie that appear to fascinate bloggers, especially of a nationalist disposition.
I was genunely amazed that a week after Gormley’s death and with the big demonstration making front page headlines, you had not heard anything about this. 35 years ago this month the senseless killing of the members of one family in Belfast led to the birth of the Peace People and spontaneous demonstrations that led to the Nobel Peace prize being awarded their main organisers as they defied paramilitary threats.
One of the elephants in the room in Scotalnd is the rise of a formdiable criminal underworld in the west of scotland which the police often appears helpess to effectively confront. One of these days, there will be an incident that shows the world just how bad things are; it will of course follow years of fluent and anguished articles from yourself and kindred spirits about why in polling surveys the Scots shrink from real change. Could it be that the answer is that those in High Blantyre and elsewhere instinctively glimpse that the rhetoricians of change are so out of touch with their daily problems, that if placed in positions of power they are likely to only make things worse than they are?
#37 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 1:22 pm
I’m sure Jeff will respond himself – but to be fair to him, he does live in London. Yes the incident dominated front page headlines here, but did it break the London press? If not, I’m not sure how he could have been aware of the situation.
On an unrelated note, I don’t think you can “help to ruin the chances of a Better Nation” by omitting to talk about something. That’s a criticism that is harsh and, well, impossible. We don’t talk so much about teen pregnancies in the North-East – are we stopping Scotland from improving by not talking about it? No – I’d suggest the lack of contraception in that case is probably more to blame than we are.
You are right in a sense that talking about an issue helps to improve the situation. But by not talking about something, we’re not guilty of ruining anything.
#38 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 2:50 pm
What on earth are you blathering on about?
If you want to start a discussion on how to tackle violent and organised crime why not take advantage of the offer made to you to write a piece about it. Stop trying to hijack this one.
#39 by CassiusClaymore on February 11, 2011 - 1:55 pm
Tom
I’m amazed by your comments. Three guys take time out from their daily lives to run a political blogsite – for comment/opinion and not an attempt to cover the news – and you come on whining that they haven’t blogged about one particular murder, and in that not doing so they “help to ruin the chances of a Better Nation”. That’s just ridiculous.
I say ‘one particular murder’ because sadly there are a lot of knife killings in Scotland, each one tragic, and if James/Jeff/Malc were to write about every single one then they’d not be doing much else.
The problem is particularly acute in the West of Scotland, run by Labour for the last 60 years and awash with Labour-approved cheap bevvy. If you want to start blaming people for “ruin[ing] the chances of a Better Nation”, then perhaps you’d be better off asking why west central Scotland is in such a shocking state after 60 years of Labour rule.
CC
#40 by Tom Gallagher on February 11, 2011 - 3:30 pm
Cassius refers to the slaying of the student Raymonn Gormley as just one particular murder. But what makes it significant is the huge grassroots reaction it drew.
Can the pall of violence hanging over too many lower-income communities be put down to 60 years of Labour rule as someone else remarks. I think there would be few takers for this in commun?ties where Labour politicians are most definitely viewed with distrust. it is the SNP which has been shaping policies on violent crime in the last 4 years, Kenny MacAskill taking high profile decisions. Perhaps raising this issue will not be seen as ‘hijacking’ the blog (as Indy tellingly put it) when you all get together after 5 May to ponder why the Labour electoral glacier defied predictions of imminent global warming in Scotland.
#41 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 3:45 pm
But it is hijacking the blog – this post WAS about the debate about prisoners voting. And as Indy says, you have been offered the opportunity to write a post about it – if you wish to use this pulpit to preach about violent crime in a reasoned manner, you are welcome to.
On your comment itself – the comment about Labour was a throwaway remark from someone designed to provoke a reaction. And if you want bare statistics on violent crimes in Scotland, in the 4 years of SNP government, knife crimes are down. That’s an unbiased statistic – I’m just presenting the fact. Personally I don’t think political parties can be blamed/ credited for violence/ reduction of violence, but I’m probably in a minority.
Anyway – no more on this issue. I’ll keep the comments open for discussion of prisoner’s voting, but if its off-topic, its getting binned.
#42 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 4:41 pm
You are hijacking a discussion about one thing to make partisan points about another.
I’d be quite happy to discuss tackling violent crime but that is not what this thread is about. It is just bad manners to try and divert a discussion when you have been offered the opportunity to start your own discussion.
#43 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 4:58 pm
Yeah – thanks Indy. We’re done on this now. Back to prisoners voting… if anyone has anything else to say on that I suppose.
#44 by Tom Gallagher on February 11, 2011 - 3:55 pm
Malc,
I merely contrasted the absorption of the Scottish ‘bien pensants’ with voting rights for prisoners and their lack of awareness or, else, disinterest, in discussing the Gormley murder despite the public reaction to it.
Your decision to guillotine the discussion is one that the late Speaker Martin would heartily approve of and saya rather a lot about the uneasy relationship between Scottish political culture and free expression.
#45 by James on February 11, 2011 - 3:59 pm
Whaaa? You’d rather go on about it here than have a whole blog post about it to yourself, and that’s us guillotining it? This post is about voting rights – please just take up the offer, which I’d welcome, rather than complaining about us.
#46 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 4:10 pm
But I’M NOT AGAINST FREE EXPRESSION! You are making this quite difficult when it need not be. All I’m saying is this is not the forum for the discussion – should you wish to have a discussion about it, write an article and we’ll publish it and have the discussion there.
I’m pretty sure any Speaker, whether Bercow, Martin or Boothroyd would rule out of order any member who continued to make contributions which were entirely removed from the subject matter in question. I’m not saying you can’t discuss it – I’m saying you should stop discussing it on this thread. That’s not a slight on freedom of expression – indeed, you’ve been offered the opportunity to freely express yourself in a much longer article. I do however, plead guilty to being a stickler for blog etiquette – but I’m entitled to, as its my space.
#47 by Tom Gallagher on February 11, 2011 - 4:41 pm
Malc,
Sorry to hold up the traffic . We obviously disagree on whether it is appropriate to broaden out a discussion on prisoners rights to include the sense of abandonment noticeable in some communities where the authorities are unable to contain indiscriminate acts of violence.
I am GLAD to say that I think your latest response undermines my claim that that you personally have an impatience with untrammelled free expression that is not unknown in scottish political culture.
I am currently in Ireland (got into Cork at 4am this morning due to delays caused by the tragic air accident there) ) researching the prospects for the Irish radical Left to build a secure electoral base in the forthcoming election (and i’m dashing around from Cork to Tipperary and Waterford) . Perhaps i will take up the offer of a post, lets say on how well or not parties reflect voters unease with crime and indeed the prisoners votes issue when the Holyrood election gets underway.
So I’ll bow out now and allow normal service to resume.
So
#48 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 4:57 pm
We do indeed disagree on that point, and that was made clear in several comments. But we’d welcome your contribution in a stand-alone thread, should you wish to pursue this issue further.
#49 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 5:02 pm
“In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights? If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance? When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise? What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?”
I have just read through a cracking debate on this issue over at PoliticalBetting.com, and where we have seen some interesting contributions from both sides of the debate.
But this particular post from astateofdenmark really struck me@54.
“Interesting para. What this court is saying is:
-There is no breach of human rights if Parliament denies a prisoner a vote.
-There is a breach if parliament denies all prisoners the vote.
These are two inconsistent statements when the court is allegedly concerned only with human rights, which by their nature are absolute. If it is a human right for an adult to vote, then it is a right. It can’t be sometimes a right and sometimes not. That is the very opposite of a ‘right’.
Ergo the court judgement is a political one and probably the result of a fudge following differing opinions amongst the judges.
by astateofdenmark February 11th, 2011 at 08:27”
That final sentence is the key to this whole debate in the UK Parliament. What happened yesterday in Parliament was political too, and for various reasons. I don’t think it was an accident that it should be Jack Straw and David Davies who picked up the torch on this issue and ran with it. It was a case of the backbench MP’s being given their chance to debate and question what has been a long running issue the last government kicked into the long grass.
Jack Straw gets a high profile role in fighting this issue which also nimble extricates himself and his party from their previous record on handling it while they were still in government. David Davies gets to be the old crusading Conservative MP standing up to Europe, which will give him more support from within the back benches of his Party as he tries to get readmitted to the ‘darlings of the Right’ brigade. I don’t wish to belittle their contribution yesterday, and I happen to agree with what they were doing. But I just feel we should remember that these are two of wiliest old operators in both the Conservative and Labour party.
As for Cameron, he genuinely believes that giving prisoners the vote would be wrong, as would granting them compensation. But equally, if quietly backing the UK Parliament by seeing more power being handed to backbenchers to debate and vote on issues also sees it using this to stand up to European edicts also happens to raise morale within his own party. Well all to the good.
But more importantly, Cameron and his team seem to be moving away from the usual attitude of our current goverments in both Westminster and elsewhere in the UK when it comes to accepting unpopular decisions handed down by the European Courts, whether it be a ruling on a point of law, or the subsequent compensation culture which sees the UK taxpayer being left with a hefty bill. And a usually hefty political bill for the party that just happens to be in power at the time it hits the electorate’s attention.
Some political commentators suggest that Cameron is taking a risk or making a mistake on this issue right now. But I suspect that Cameron is not going to sit idle by while a dictate from European is leaving him with two equally toxic political ticking bombs which could quite easily explode around the time of the next GE. Either granting prisoners the right to vote, or leaving the UK taxpayer with a huge compensation bill should the UK Parliament refuse to do so. Neither of these options are going to be acceptable to the electorate, but why the hell should the current Coalition government take the rap for something handed down by nearly 50 judges unelected or directly accountable to the UK voter?
If this is an ECHR’s decision, then let them justify and defend it to the voters of the countries which it might effect. Maybe its a fight they might not want to have?
#50 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 5:20 pm
Quite. But they wouldn’t have to do the justifying would they? Being “faceless, European bureaucrats” as some Eurosceptics might have it, they could just sit in Brussels or Strasbourg and hand down their judgement and tell the signatories to stick to it. Or something.
Of course its a political issue, but I think at its heart there is a “right and wrong” point too – and that is, ECHR ruling aside, do we think prisoner’s should be allowed to vote? And do we see voting as a human right or not?
On the latter, I’ve been debating with Indy above – I see it as a “democratic right” but not a human right, which makes me see it as part of liberty – and given liberty is denied to those incarcerated, so too should voting be. I suspect if judges had come to that conclusion, we’d have a less controversial issue!
#51 by Scott on February 11, 2011 - 6:48 pm
“These are two inconsistent statements when the court is allegedly concerned only with human rights, which by their nature are absolute. If it is a human right for an adult to vote, then it is a right. It can’t be sometimes a right and sometimes not. That is the very opposite of a ‘right’.”
This is a false argument. Human rights under the ECHR are not absolute. Most are subject to qualifications, and give power to nations to qualify them in various ways.
#52 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Two other points I wanted to add to that last post, and first often get missed now we are in the era of Coalition government and tough and unpopular austerity measures. Throughout Cameron’s leadership, he has had the uncanny knack of picking his moments when it comes to high profile and honest plain speaking interventions that touch a nerve with the voters. And this is one of those times.
Jack Straw is leading the charge from the Labour opposition benches, but where is Ed Miliband and the Shadow Cabinet when it comes to having a view on this, and where were all those Labour backbenchers yesterday? Completely AWOL, surprising when you think that they have been in charge while this whole issue was gathering momentum. But then there is not any particular small but high profile and noisy protest group out on the streets raising this issue.
#53 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 5:22 pm
That’s true – but then neither government nor opposition front benches were involved in the debate, and neither wanted anything to do with the outcome. Cameron, for right or wrong, has said that he personally finds it wrong – I don’t think that was a political move, just a personal opinion. But you are right – what does Ed think? Who knows.
#54 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 5:29 pm
Alternatively, they could maybe just tidy up the law. As I understand it, it is the lack of a clear system that is the problem from the ECHR point of view. They are not saying all prisoners should be allowed to vote. I think they are saying that the UK ought to set out the circumstances where people will not be allowed to vote e.g. if they have committed X offence or if their sentence is of a particular length. It occurs to me that emergency legislation could have been passed sorting that out pretty quickly if there had been the will to do it.
I also find all the wailing about Europe dictating to the UK a bit silly really.
The UK signed up to ECHR. If the Tories want to de-subscribe then why don’t they just say that? Instead it seems to me that they are picking on this issue to make themselves appear as though they are taking a stand against Europe when in fact they are taking a stand against something which the UK agreed to abide by on a voluntary basis.
That’s a bit daft.
#55 by Mad Jock McMad on February 11, 2011 - 5:37 pm
Maybe Tom would like to have a look at my blog where I have pulled together the information currently available on crime and the Labour Party in the West of Scotland. Using the link to my site via my blog name.
It exercises me too – just why are so many West of Scotland Labour Councils giving contracts to known criminal front organisations to the value, according to Strathclyde Police, of many millions of pounds?
Just why do the voters in the West of Scotland continue to vote for a socialist party that hasn’t a clue about socialism but is all about lining their own pockets – SPT, City Buildings to name but two.
Why is Glasgow City Council Labour section blocking any and every attempt by Strathclyde Police to investigate Purcell and his iffy contracts?
Tom – if you are worried about crime in the West of Scotland there is a political party behind it all, one that claims to be a socialist party, whose relationship with Glasgow’s Organised Crime syndicates starts right at the top with the ex Secretary of State and {REDACTED} and goes all the way down to City Buildings – Labour (Scottish Region).
#56 by James on February 11, 2011 - 8:08 pm
You can libel away on your own blog, not here.
#57 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 9:23 pm
Apologies James – a few comments came through at the same time, and I didn’t read it too specifically…
#58 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 6:04 pm
Malc, I agree that the government and the opposition Shadow Cabinet all abstained, and that this vote is not binding. But I have no idea what Ed Miliband’s view on this debate and vote was either publicly or quietly. With Cameron, I know that he personally finds it unpalatable that prisoners be given the vote, and that its being reported that he also tacitly approved of Davies and Straw bringing forward this debate and vote in the HoC’s as well as the eventual outcome.
I think that its striking that Clegg and Miliband have been far more quiet about their views, and this also has implications for the devolved governments too. Far too often they too have found them selves in political difficulty with the voters over an unpopular diktat handed down by the European Courts.
Cameron has wanted to have a confrontation over the ECHR’s, but that showdown has obviously been curtailed with the formation of a Coalition government that sees the far more pro European Libdems as their partners. This a perfect opportunity to finally get this issue out onto the floor of the HoC’s, and into the media spotlight without causing more headaches for Clegg and the Libdems in the government.
#59 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 6:11 pm
I predict that other countries will follow the lead of the UK should they wish to stand up to this kind of infringement of the sovereignty of their individual nations. Its interesting that when a small number of countries were given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, they voted no and it was simple rewritten and put forward again without referendums. And the only country that still had to be consulted would have kept being asked until it said yes.
The mood seems to be changing, and sometimes they say a successful political leader also tends to be a lucky one.
#60 by Indy on February 11, 2011 - 6:41 pm
What are you talking about?
The rest of the EU seems to have it sorted. In some countries prisoners can vote, in some only certain prisoners can vote, in others no prisoners can vote, in Belgium I believe that some categories of offender are not alllowed to vote for a period exceeding the length of their sentence.
The difference between those countries and the UK is that they actually have some kind of set of rules governing the circumstances where prisoners will be deprived of their vote.
In the UK all prisoners lose the right to vote, whether they are in jail for one day or fifty years. There is no distinction made between a serial killer and someone who has been jailed for a motoring offence.
Or let’s look at it another way. Two people commit the same crime – let’s say breach of the peace. One gets a prison sentence and loses the right to vote, another gets a community sentence and keeps the right to vote. Even though they have been convicted of the same offence.
It’s just sloppy isn’t it? It’s not sovereignty that these MPs are defending, it’s sloppiness.
#61 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 6:57 pm
So are you arguing that some should and some shouldn’t get to vote? Or they all should get to vote?
#62 by Indy on February 12, 2011 - 9:19 am
To be really honest I don’t particularly care about prisoners voting rights as an issue. It wouldn’t bother me if they could vote but equally I do not feel impelled to go out and campaign for them to be allowed to vote.
But I think there are a lot of inconsistencies put forward in the arguments against prisoners having the vote. And the more I have looked at it, the more I feel the European Court has a very valid point in saying to the UK you ought to get your act together on this and formalise the situation. If other countries can do that why can’t we?
If all the time that has been devoted to debating the issue had been devoted to putting together some emergency legislation to sort it out, the prospect of being fined would not even arise.
I also feel, as I said, that a lot of the politics around it regarding supposedly standing up to Europe and defending our sovereignty is nonsense, and calculated nonsense at that.
#63 by Malc on February 12, 2011 - 11:30 am
Indy – it’s not an issue I feel hugely strongly about, but from a political theory perspective (so, really, academically) it is hugely interesting. Specifically, as you say, the consistency in both the arguments and indeed the situation, makes it something worth considering I think. Especially, what do we mean by the terms “liberty”, “punishment” and “human right”.
#64 by Indy on February 13, 2011 - 11:00 am
yes I see what you mean but I do think it’s a bit of an academic argument. (Although it’s also one of those issues that gives some people an outlet for their free floating rage).
If I ruled the world I would have changed the law so that prisoners convicted of minor offences could apply for a postal vote to cast their ballot in the constituency in which they are registered to vote. If they were not registered to vote when they went into prison, tough.
I wouldn’t want the prison service to encourage them to apply for a postal vote, I would just make it legal for them to do so, which would satisfy the requirements of the court ruling I think.
I very much doubt if more than a handful of prisoners in each prison would exercise this right, so it wouldn’t really make any practical difference to anything really.
#65 by Steve on February 11, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Our default position must be that anyone old enough should be allowed to vote.
Prison is there to deter, rehabilitate, punish or protect society. Since removing a prisoner’s right to vote doesn’t contribute to any of those aims, it isn’t justifiable and so prisoners should be allowed to vote.
Or rather they shouldn’t not be allowed to vote, if you see what I mean!
#66 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 6:28 pm
“Prison is there to deter, rehabilitate, punish or protect society. Since removing a prisoner’s right to vote doesn’t contribute to any of those aims…”
It doesn’t count as a punishment, no? As in, you are in prison because you did something bad – in the same way you can’t nip out of prison to go to the bookies or get married, you can’t nip out to a polling station either. I don’t get why voting is a part of someone’s liberty that is more sacred than freedom of movement – and we’re taking the latter away from prisoners, so why not the former as well?
#67 by James on February 11, 2011 - 6:38 pm
It is irrelevant to most prisoners, and simply alienates the others. Why not stop them reading, watching TV, or receiving mail from their families?
#68 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 6:44 pm
Well you can do that if you want James. In some cases, I think, that can be used as extra punishment if they misbehave inside, no?
The reason its different is that it relates to liberty. In prison you can read, watch TV or receive mail from families – but not at your liberty. Its at the prison’s discretion and on their timetable. You are not “free” to do so when you choose – at least, I don’t think you are.
You never answered the fundamental question though – why is voting a more fundamental right than freedom of movement? Why should voting be permitted when movement is not?
#69 by Mad Jock McMad on February 11, 2011 - 7:54 pm
Malc – there is a clear dichotomy here.
If exercising your vote is a human right according to the EHCR judgement then liberty must also be a fundamental human right.
Yet it has been the reality through out history that some one who does ‘wrong’, as far as their societal norms are concerned, has the fundamental right of ‘liberty’ removed from them as a way of demonstrating their society’s dislike for their ‘anti-social’ behaviour. Surely it is only right if the person has been deemed unfit and imprisoned then their are not a suitable person to be involved in a democracy and forgo their right to exercise their vote?
Incarceration was, after all, a Victorian invention. Previously, in most criminal cases, the convict was held until friends or a patron paid their fine, swore their freedom, did their days in the ‘Jakes’, were transported, joined the army or hung.
So it seems logical to me that the removal of liberty for a crime involves the removal of all the related privileges and rights of being at ‘liberty’.
#70 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 6:39 pm
“It doesn’t count as a punishment, no? As in, you are in prison because you did something bad – in the same way you can’t nip out of prison to go to the bookies or get married, you can’t nip out to a polling station either. I don’t get why voting is a part of someone’s liberty that is more sacred than freedom of movement – and we’re taking the latter away from prisoners, so why not the former as well?”
Malc, I am with you on this. I read somewhere today that Slovenia simple allows prisoners to vote if they can get down to the polling booth on election day….But as my oldest teenage lad pointed out, some of our prisoners are already in open prisons so that might be an interesting way to go?
But in amongst all the debate today about prisoners human rights, we have to remember that some of those very prisoners took away someone else’s life. We can debate the rights and wrongs of our current penal system which sees people imprisoned and denied the vote while some critics feel that their crime doesn’t warrant the removal of this basic right to vote. But equally, you will see opposing critics highlighting some of the more horrific crimes committed by some prisoners to make the same argument against giving them the right to vote.
#71 by fitalass on February 11, 2011 - 7:08 pm
“I find much of the rhetoric (mostly from the hang ‘em and flog ‘em Tory circles) really quite unsettling.”
Jeff, I never had Malc down as a hang ’em and flog ’em Tory, but then neither am I one of that group either despite being a Conservative.
#72 by Jeff on February 12, 2011 - 12:13 am
Just to be clear, I’m not saying all Conservatives are ‘hang em and flog em’ but I am saying that those that are seem to be espousing some particularly unpalatable viewpoints. I understand yours and Malc’s points and, while I don’t really agree with them, I totally recognise their validity and reasonableness.
#73 by Observer on February 11, 2011 - 9:03 pm
The thing that makes the UK’s position incompatible with human rights is the blanket nature of the ban.
The UK could easily say that certain categories of prisoner are not allowed to vote & here’s why. That would show they had thought about it & not just viewed all prisoners as the same.
It’s quite disgraceful that they are prepared to face justly imposed fines for imposing a blanket ban, as blanket bans per se hardly ever stand up to a challenge.
Ridiculous nonsense.
#74 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 9:21 pm
Observer – I’ve left your other comment out coz we agreed to close the subject. But if Tom writes on the subject, we can re-open the topic again.
#75 by Observer on February 11, 2011 - 9:22 pm
Anyway I think voting is a right – & it should be a right that is stripped from you if you commit a certain type of offence.
But you have to define who loses that right & why. Blanket bans never take into account individual circumstances which is why they nearly always fail if challenged.
#76 by Observer on February 11, 2011 - 9:25 pm
OK Malc sorry I was commenting as I was reading.
I would welcome Tom writing on the subject I hope he takes up the challenge – that would be an interesting debate.
#77 by Malc on February 11, 2011 - 9:29 pm
Not a problem – I just didn’t want to get into the whole debate again!
#78 by Steve on February 11, 2011 - 10:56 pm
Observer, spot on. Malc says taking away a prisoner’s vote is a punishment. But it’s a bizarre punishment as it is randomly applied; arbitrarily linked to being in prison and happening to coincide with an election. It’s like deciding that everyone convicted in an odd year won’t be allowed to listen to the radio.
#79 by Alec Macph on February 12, 2011 - 11:53 am
Miles up, Indy said that he couldn’t imagine many prisoners taking-up the right to vote. And there’s the rub. Jonathan Aitken was on the radio saying that this ranks very low down on prisoners’ considerations… all it serves is spiv lawyers and otherwise mediocre nobodies who, had they not latched onto the state-funded human rights industry, would be concerning themselves with council bin collections and legislation dealing with dog fouling.
I don’t think prisoners should retain the franchize (and that anyone who cites an apocryphal case of someone sentanced to a few weeks for a supposedly minor offence should be campaigning to de-criminalize that offence, not extend the franchize across the board). Others think they should retain it, or that no blanket ban be imposed.
It’s an ethical thing. That Michael Mansfield QC could come out with flowery bollocks about nowhere on Moses’ tablets of stone being there a ban on prisoners’ voting rights – nor was there a mention of paedophilia or armed-robbery, but we still crminalize that – shows the depths of arrogance, self-righteousness and sheer divorce from any sense of proportion or receptivenass to criticism that those leading this campaign are drinking from.
Come-now, Malc. Penal reform is a noble issue. Prisoners retain (or, in theory, at least) access to legal representation and MPs continue to be obliged to represent their constituents (be this based on where they’re gaoled, or where they were residing beforehand).
The wider issue is why a group of unelected, legally-underqualified technocrats and professional activists (and where the Luxembourg delegate has the same vote as the British one) should have any authority over elected national legislatures.
Out of interest, what is the SNP’s position on this?
~alec
#80 by NoOffenceAlan on February 12, 2011 - 4:08 pm
My 2p’s worth on this is that prisoners serving up to a year getting the vote would annoy me a lot less than lifers getting compensation through the pig-headedness or grandstanding of politicians.
#81 by Stephen on February 13, 2011 - 5:21 pm
“The politicians have lost faith in the people. They must choose another electorate” (paraphrased from Bertold Brecht).
Seems this is true. Here we have the elected deciding who can vote for them.
#82 by Eilidh on February 14, 2011 - 7:49 pm
Prison is not only there for punishment but also to rehabilitate. In Germany they actively encourage prisoners to vote (unless they are there for crimes against democracy, in which case they are not entitled to vote). I don’t know the reasons for this, but it could be to help them to engage with the society that they will be expected rejoin at the end of their sentence. With re-offending rates as high as they are, maybe this wouldn’t be a bad idea.