The Government’s proposed options for changing the law in relation to prisoners voting rights
Following on from this post...the nitty gritty of the government's thrust is as follows:
8
The Government’s proposed options for changing the law
8.1
Enfranchise prisoners sentenced to less than a specified term
The policy of a number of member states of the Council of Europe is to allow prisoners sentenced for less than a specified term to retain the right to vote but to disenfranchise those who have been given longer sentences. The consultation document notes that in Belgium those prisoners who receive a sentence of longer than 4 months are disqualified from voting; in Austria prisoners who are sentenced for a year or more are disqualified; in Italy prisoners serving 5 years or more are disqualified and in Greece all prisoners who are given a life sentence are permanently disenfranchised.33 The Government acknowledges that setting the threshold at which prisoners become disenfranchised may lead to inconsistencies and
30 HL Deb 6 May 2008 cWA59
31 HL Deb 6 May 2008 cWA60
32 HC Deb 10 June 2008 c219W
33 Voting rights of convicted prisoners detained within the United Kingdom- the UK Government’s response to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom: consultation paper. Department for Constitutional Affairs, 14 December 2006 11
indicates in the consultation paper that it is ‘not inclined to consider extending the eligible length of sentence beyond low sentence lengths, such as one year in prison.’34
8.2
Allow sentencers to decide on withdrawal of franchise
There are two alternative means of doing this. The first would be for legislation to empower judges to determine whether, despite a general disenfranchisement of prisoners, the offender should retain the capacity to vote. The second would empower judges to direct that the offender should be disqualified even if there were no general disqualification of prisoners. Individual consideration would demonstrate a move away from the general ban on prisoners’ voting rights but this option would increase the burden on the judiciary when determining sentences.
8.3
Enfranchise all tariff-expired life sentence prisoners
The Government indicates in the consultation document that it considered enfranchising prisoners who are kept beyond the original length of their sentence, due to their continued threat to the public, as undesirable and does not intend to pursue this option.
8.4
Proposals specific to convicted prisoners found guilty of election offences
Prisoners who receive custodial sentences after being convicted of certain election offences automatically lose their right to vote under the current ban on prisoners voting. Penalties for election offences which are classed as corrupt practices mean that the convicted offender will be barred from holding elective office for 5 years and in the case of offences relating to postal or proxy votes the offender will also be barred from voting for a period of 5 years. The Government asks whether, in the light of the European Court’s judgment, these offences should mean an automatic withdrawal of the franchise.
8.5
Proposals specific to unconvicted and convicted offenders detained in mental hospitals
Under Section 3A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 offenders detained in mental hospitals are not currently able to register to vote. The Government asks for views on whether any changes to the ban on prisoners voting should be extended to those detained in such hospitals although it will not consider extending the vote to patients who are subject to restriction orders under Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
In response to the publication of the consultation document, Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
The Prison Reform Trust is pleased that the government is taking steps to respond to the unequivocal judgment by the European Court that the blanket ban on prisoners voting is unlawful. The debate must start from the democratic principle that being a citizen is an inalienable right and the practical observation that the exercise of responsibilities encourages responsible behaviour.
The government should welcome the chance to overturn an outdated ban with no place in a modern prison system that aims to ensure that those who have been punished with the loss of liberty can become good and useful citizens on release.
34 ibid, p24
12
There has been considerable support for this move from the Prison Governors Association, past and present Chief Inspectors of Prisons, the Anglican and Catholic Bishops to prisons, and Parliamentarians of all parties.35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be returning to this subject tomorrow when I intend to fisk the government's proposals.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
3 comments:
Yep, read this.
You lost me after the second paragraph, but I presume it all boils down to the Government trying to stop prisoners getting any sort of voting rights.
I think too low a setting of the bar and you are only basically going thru the motions.
I feel somewhere around the 5 - 7 year point might be acceptable, a ballpark figure that could give prisoners with a long sentence an interest in their futures.
By the way, if you're on remand can you still vote John?
BB: I think the government lost you after the 2nd paragraph.
You're right, the UK has a track record of only doing the minimum to comply with it's obligations to the Convention. Sadly, they are just going through the motions.
The problem with having any cut off point is that it adds another criterion to the right to vote not imposed upon any other member of the electorate.
I am against any restriction based upon severity of crime and/or length of sentence.
Remand prisoners can now vote, the government changed the law to allow this when I started my legal challenge. It was an attempt to kick my challenge into touch.
Post a Comment