This week I was surprised to find out how big of an issue prisoners voting rights are. I had assumed that a prison sentence would entail a suspension of the right and prisoners would accept the forfeiture as part of their punishment. While this is the case in the UK, I was surprised to learn of the depth of opposition to this system from the European Union. The contentious point has to do with Art.3 European Convention on Human Rights guarantee of free elections, which is incompatible with Britain’s blanket ban on prisoners voting rights.
Art 3 ECHR rules that voting is a right and not a privilege and a limitation of the right must be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be proportionate. The legitimacy of the aim is clear. While incarceration should incorporate rehabilitative functions, the primary purpose of imprisonment is to foster a respect for the law through the punishment of wrongdoing. Europe has no problem with Britain’s policy regarding aim; rather it is the lack of proportionality evidenced in the blanket ban that doesn’t sit well.
In Germany, voting rights are only suspended for crimes that seek to disestablish the democratic regime. In Greece, only those with a life sentence cannot vote. While Ireland and Cyprus imposed blanket bans at a time, they have since reformed their respective laws. It seems that Britain is seen as something of a dinosaur in the eyes of Europe but personally I applaud David Cameron’s insistence that there is ‘no reason’ why prisoners should get the vote. It seems strange to me how so few from the Continent have posed the question; why should those who have shown little respect for the law have a hand in its formation?
No comments:
Post a Comment