The right to vote, should it be extended to all citizens, or should it only be handed to the law abiding, responsible citizens of the UK? This is the question being posed to Mark Harper, the Constitutional Reform Minister, ahead of Ken Clarke's eagerly anticipated Justice Review. Traditionally on social policy, both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties stand on much more liberal, freedom invoking ground, promoting civil liberties and rights. However, to what extent is a convicted criminal a citizen worthy of rights?
The European Court of Human Rights in 2005 ruled that the 140 year old law banning prisoners from voting in general elections was unlawful under the Human Rights Act. They insisted that, law breaker or not, the right to vote should be extended to inmates. Lord Faulkner spoke out against the ruling of the ECHR, and the Labour Party ignored the ruling under Faulkner's guidance until they were removed from power in 2010. However, Harper has had to take a second look at the ruling as the new government sets out its justice and constitutional agenda.
Firstly, the very aspect of punishing a criminal by taking away their right to freedom of movement and action is in fact denying them real citizenship already. Surely then, the denying of a vote for inmates is simply extending the punishment of 'belittled citizenship'? If a man has simply a history of stealing cars, it shouldn't hinder his ability to make an informed judgement about who to vote for in a general election. So on that logic it would be wrong to deny the vote for inmates on an intellect or capability level, so the anti argument must purely be ethical or moral. So therefore, if a man has taken the life of another man, surely it cannot be just for him then to be able to vote for the party which could and probably will then go on to decide and impose the levels of severity of the punishment placed on him and legislation concerning his release and prison life? It surely is a good enhancement to deny said killer the simple right to vote, as a reminder that he has done serious wrong? In a radio interview, Mick Gradwell, a former Deputy Superintendent for Lancashire Police, said that giving inmates the right to vote using the Human Rights Act would be 'distasteful'. He stated;
“the Human Rights Act is again being used to give rights to criminals, when you rarely ever see it being used to give rights to the law abiding people.”
Faulkner himself said that, aside from moral arguments against giving prisoners the vote, there would also be immense costs in administering the removal of it, setting up the a voting format for inmates, and compensating those already denied. So surely it would be much easier and more moral to simply continue denying prisoners the right to vote? Some, including probably most of the Labour Party, would agree, but others would not.
However, prison is supposed to be as equally orientated with rehabilitation of criminals as it is the punishment of them. Those in favour of giving inmates the vote have claimed that denying criminals this right is treating them as if they were not adults, as the vote is obtained at 18 with adulthood, which in no way helps the rehabilitation process. A good argument perhaps from the pro-enfranchising side is that, in fact, some inmates already are given the vote. Those awaiting retrial for instance are allowed to vote in general elections, as are those imprisoned for contempt of court and fine defaulters. If these offenders are handed the vote, how easy would it be to extend it to all inmates? Faulkner would argue that such an extension would occur with great difficulty, but Harper seems to be favouring implamenting the law and therefore making this extension. David Cameron has also moved into the debate, widely suggesting that the government should consider making this move, but is expected to resist and proposed changes to the law which will allow the most serious offenders, serial killers or child murderers for example, being given the vote.
It would appear then that the government will indeed be extending the enfranchisement to criminals, but perhaps not all. As far as one can tell from the arguments, there are two possible routes that the government can take; it could either upset the ECHR and continue to deny the right to vote for inmates on moral and cost grounds, or it could maintain and uphold its largerly liberal views on social policy and allow the less serious offenders who are imprisoned, to vote.
quote and info source: BBC Report Article inc. Gradwell's Interview
No comments:
Post a Comment