Prisoners deserve to be disenfranchised
The North Yorkshire Police website is home to a sad collection of faces. Faces guilty of crimes including assault, theft, blackmail, tax evasion, drug dealing and even manslaughter. They are all serving prison sentences of up to four years and they will all be eligible to vote under new legislation to be introduced next year. The change comes following pressure from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for the government to remove the blanket ban on prisoners’ eligibility to vote. The ECHR believes the ban to be an infringement of prisoners’ rights.
Prisoners cannot reasonably claim that their rights are being infringed upon when they have directly deprived another person of theirs. In 2001, John Hirst, who served 25 years for killing his landlady, challenged the removal of prisoners’ enfranchisement in court, but was dismissed. In 2005, Hirst then went on to appeal with success to the ECHR. He has been a relentless campaigner for the prisoner’s right to vote, and this week rejoiced at the announcement in a homemade video where he stated, “I’m now going to celebrate for the 75,000 prisoners who will be getting the vote – that includes murderers, rapists, paedophiles, all of them will be getting the vote because it’s their human right to have the vote.”
This all comes from a man who, after an unprovoked attack on his landlady with an axe, calmly went to make a cup of coffee, and drank it as she lay fatalling wounded in the next room. Criminals deprive others of their rights, and at the very least they should have their liberties restricted as part of their punishment. His landlady will never vote again, so why should Hirst?
Regardless of a prisoner’s crime or history, once in prison the fact of the matter is this: a prisoner’s living costs are paid for by the tax payer, whilst they do not contribute to society in any way. As a result, their temporary disenfranchisement seems only fair, preventing them from having a voice in the system that they have rejected.
We must consider the future. If the ECHR and the likes of John Hirst have succeeded in making the government back down this far on the grounds of human rights infringement, then where will it stop? Like it or not, prisoners serving sentences longer than four years are still entitled to their human rights, so it is not inconceivable to consider that in the future, those convicted of the worst crimes will be able to vote.
Criminals undergoing their punishment deserve to be disenfranchised as a result of their actions. Once a sentence has been served and an inmate re-enters society, they then have the opportunity to contribute again in a positive way. Only then should they be enfranchised, and allowed a voice equal to yours or mine.
Comment: Contrary to your headline, of course convicted prisoners do not deserve to be disenfranchised save for those convicted of electoral fraud or abuse of a public office (see Hirst v UK (No2) and Frodl v Austria).
Whilst you are correct in observing the type of offender who will be allowed to vote under the government’s proposals, you are incorrect to claim that legislation for these proposals will be introduced next year. The necessary change to domestic law is as a result of pressure from the ECtHR (see Hirst v UK (No2) and Frodl v Austria), and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and from the Interlaken process. I state necessary change because the government’s proposals do not refer to this, rather it is an attempt to not fully comply with both Hirst v UK (No2) and Frodl v Austria. These cases show that only by amending s.3 of ROPA 1983 to reflect that all convicted prisoners must be allowed to vote, will be evidence of the necessary change.
You are wrong to claim “Prisoners cannot reasonably claim that their rights are being infringed upon when they have directly deprived another person of theirs”. The HRA 1998 is not about balancing the human rights of prisoners with the rights of victims of crimes. The HRA states that those who have their rights infringed by a public authority are victims. Indeed, the ECtHR stated in my judgment that I was a victim. Under the Actio Popularis principle the Court protects vulnerable groups in society from abuse by the State and from victimisation by wider society. The mere fact that I won the case is evidence that prisoners can reasonably claim that their rights are being infringed. It is your argument which is unreasonable.
It was 30 March 2004 when the Chamber handed down its judgment, and the government lost its appeal to the Grand Chamber on 6 October 2005. The video was not posted this week but after the government’s announcement on 3 November.
Indeed, this all comes from me. Isn’t it a wonderful achievement?
Actually, the trial judge refers to accepting a certain amount of provocation in my case therefore your reference to unprovoked is not only legally but factually incorrect. Perhaps, the word you were looking for was “unjustified”? And, we were both in the same room at the time. Criminals do deprive others of their rights, and if sentenced by the court (the punishment), and given a custodial sentence, they do lose their liberty as part of the punishment. Once again your argument falters. It is true that the dead cannot vote, and I do vote because I am now outside serving my sentence in the community. But, other convicted prisoners should vote because the highest court in Europe has said this should be the case. Accept it.
Whilst it is true that the cost of keeping prisoners in prison is met by the taxpayers, however, many of them do contribute to society. The franchise is not based upon making monetary contributions. Therefore it is your argument which is not fair. It is precisely to give prisoners the voice in Parliament that I took the case to court. I do not agree with your claim that prisoners have rejected the system.
As you say: “Like it or not, prisoners serving sentences longer than four years are still entitled to their human rights, so it is not inconceivable to consider that in the future, those convicted of the worst crimes will be able to vote”. The government will have a headache when it returns after the Xmas holiday period.
“Criminals undergoing their punishment deserve to be disenfranchised as a result of their actions”. Prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment. It is the government in the dock for its actions (or inaction if you like). The ECtHR made it clear in my case that seriousness of crime or length of sentence is not a factor to be taken into account in relation to the franchise. So, the prisoners conduct is no yardstick in relation to the vote. It is a basic human right in a democracy.
Prisoners are not removed from society and remain part of it even in custody. Some prisoners do contribute in a positive way. Look at me, for example, I went from a law breaker to a law-maker. I am doing the public a service by reforming the law. Freedom of expression extends to prisoners. Society can learn from the prisoners voice, and it is equal to any other voice in society. The government had argued that prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote, but this was rejected by the Court. Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, when the expenses scandal broke, stated that Parliament had lost the moral authority to govern. When I won the case, I also claimed the moral high ground.
Because the government has not handed over the White Flag of Surrender, it means that the £135m (which the taxpayers will have to pay for denying prisoners the vote in last year’s European election and May’s general election) could be doubled if those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and English in the AV referendum, don’t get the vote by May 2011.
It remains to say, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
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.
5 comments:
Your response very well crafted, I think, for your audience. Some encouraging responses from most other commenters.
You allude to the Human Rights Act 98, but how can you look past the simple fact that, like many other people fighting your corner, you are using the HRA and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in an exceptionally contradictory manner.
Of course, the presence of Protocol 1, Article 3 is important to the decision, as nobody can deny that free and fair elections are crucial.
But the burning issue that can't be overlooked is your, and clearly the ECtHR's, sheer defiance to accept that you are already in breach of the Convention.
How is it possible that you can breach the Convention so fundamentally, (notably in your case Article 2 - life) yet when it suits you, come crawling back hoping for some sort of assistance from the very same Convention when it comes to the vote.
By acting the way you did, you clearly disregarded the Convention, and also the HRA 98 on a more national level. You can't have it both ways.
When you stop and think, your "other convicted prisoners should vote because the highest court in Europe has said this should be the case. Accept it." comment must seem rather naive.
"because they said so" is quite possibly the oldest one in the book. I suggest halting your thoughts for a moment and just ponder the significance of the breaching of the Convention.
I could sit for hours and take this comment to pieces, because there is so much in it that is borderline outrageous to the majority of normal thinking citizens.
Take, for example, "It is a basic human right in a democracy." I certainly know a right that is far more basic that you breached.
I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that the court has ruled such a decision, but I do have the feeling you really are missing the point that there is little to no public support or sympathy for your 'plight of the poor prisoner' cause. So your unbelievable 'law-breaker to law-maker, doing the public a service' claim is just totally incorrect.
I can't stress enough the point about the prisoners basic rights issue. Of course, as you state, freedom of expression can extend to prisoners. However, civil rights go hand in hand quite clearly with civil responsibility, but when these rights have been so flagrantly violated by committing an imprisonable offence, the majority of the law-abiding population will agree and conclude that you can not for one moment look to a civil/human rights argument to assist you.
The ECtHR may have agreed with you, but rest assured they are only part of a small, small minority that do.
I hope you've asked for a new moral compass from Santa for Christmas, because you are in desperate need of one.
Dear Concerned Student
I will forgive your ignorance seeing that it is Christmas.
The fact is that there is no contradiction. Neither the HRA nor Convention is about balancing the rights of crime victims against those human rights of prisoners being abused by a public authority.
Therefore, there is no burning issue because I have just doused your inflammatory argument.
Hardly crawling riding high on my White Charger. As you have pointed out, I did breach Article 2 right to life and as a result was punished for this by a court.
I was not aware of the Convention at the time of my crime, and the HRA did not come into force for another 20 years.
By now you must realise that it is really yourself that is naive.
Because the Court said so is a perfectly good reason. I did ponder the significance of the UK breaching the Convention, and that is why I challenged it.
"I could sit for hours and take this comment to pieces, because there is so much in it that is borderline outrageous to the majority of normal thinking citizens". Be my guest. However, the UK spent 5 years trying to get off the hook on this one and failed. In Frodl v Austria it clearly states that it is the Hirst test which rules the day and not public opinion.
As you rightly point out, under the Convention, the right to life is higher than the right to vote. However, my case was about the right to the vote and not about the right to life. Try not to let yourself get confused.
My case was not a popular cause. Like I said, public opinion is not a ground to exclude prisoners from their human rights. The Court protects vulnerable groups like prisoners from victimisation by wider society. Being a human rights defender I do provide a public service.
We do not have a bill of rights and responsibilities. Once again, public opinion counts for naught.
No may about it. Did. I seem to recall that 47% of those who took part in Labour's dodgy consultation exercise agreed that all prisoners should have the vote. And, only 4 (not 4%) supported the government view of a limited franchise.
The moral compass I have works just fine. It states I am on the right course.
Sorry SMRudeforth I do not allow cunts to libel and insult me on my blog. When I can be arsed to edit your comment it will be published. Ok? If not, tough shit.
well you really have shown your true colours with that comment haven't you? protector of public interest... laughable.
Post a Comment