(click on image to enlarge)Pomp and circumstance but no prisoners votes
I went to bed last night wondering why the Queen's Speech did not refer to a Bill to allow convicted prisoners their human right to vote? The reason I ask is because political commentators have mentioned that it is unusual for the Queen's Speech to be so thin on Bills. Therefore, there was room to have included it if the government had been so inclined. Another reason why it is at the front of my mind is the Galley/Green affair. I keep hearing references to democracy and conventions and constitutional issues, all of these apply in the Prisoners Votes Case and yet it is not on the political agenda. I feel all the pomp and circumstance of the State Opening of Parliament is totally unnecessary in this day and age and detracts from the need to address serious issues.
Do prisoners have access to an MP, if so which constuency are they considered to be in?
ReplyDeleteIf losing the right to vote is considered part of the punishment, why don't judges take away or not take away this right when considering the severity of the crime?
Prisoners do have access to their MP from the constituency where they have their home address, or if no fixed abode then the constituency in which the jail is located. However, because convicted prisoners do not presently have the vote, MPs tend not to have the will to represent them.
ReplyDeleteThe government view is that disenfranchisement is part of the sentence. However, the ECtHR decided otherwise, and stated that a judge must decide this at the time of sentence. Moreover, the ECtHR stated that the issue should not be severity of crime or sentence, rather disenfranchisement should be reserved for those, for example, who commit electoral fraud.
off topic but such a shame Sharon Matthews isn't a doctor, eh ?
ReplyDeleteI see that the McCanns are already preparing a Xmas message to try to upstage the Queen.
ReplyDeleteBless. Always thinking about other people.
ReplyDelete