Does the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners?

[Lateralthinking1]

No, ff couldn't . I feel it to be 'liberal' to allow prisoners to vote but the argument seems to me to be the wrong way round because at present they can't. If they did have the vote, how strong would the arguments be to take that right away?

This goes back to 2010, but I don't know if the situation has changed since.

It sounds as if the Deputy Prime Minister started with a more liberal position than I expected. However, no one could call him a fellow who rarely travels so I fully accept your current assessment, ie it isn't very clear.

On your specific question, I think it depends on the broader environment. When people believe that the law is fair, politicians are principled and the economy is well-managed, a country is sufficiently at ease with itself not to worry unduly about mixed signals. As most people's memories don't go back that far, they are more inclined to ask questions.

[Flosshilde]

If they did have the vote, how strong would the arguments be to take that right away?

That seems to me to be a very good starting point for many discussions, not just this one.

[Pabmusic]

I found this letter on the Guardian website from a group of highly respected experts in the penal field. I think it sums up the position the UK is in very well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/21/mps-law-on-prisoners-votes

A linked article reminds us that the ECHR has made it clear that "prisoner enfranchisement can be made conditional on the nature or gravity of the offence...; it is for the national authorities to decide". It reminds us of "the considerable lengths to which the former ECHR president and UK judge Nicolas Bratza [have] gone to ensure the court does not adopt a "micro management" approach". It also reminds us of the comfort the UK government's actions may give to Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slovakia and Ukraine in their challenges over things such as the right to segregate jews and gypsies in schools.

After all, the UK was the prime mover in establishing the ECHR, and the principal drafter of the Convention in 1950.

[Simon]

post 43, which does seem to be a reasonable ... response to Scotty's post 42,

" you are a typical internet loudmouth with nothing to say "

"loving books wouldn't mean anything to someone as mean spirited and petty as yourself."

"your native viciousness shining through (I bet you'd love to denounce people for reading the wrong books. Give you such a buzz)."

"slimy opportunism"

"getting citizens such as yourself to inform on people for thinking for themselves."

Well, if those are "reasonable" comments, aimed at the discussion rather than at the poster, then my name is Henk van Werden.

QED I think.

[Lateralthinking1]

I found this letter on the Guardian website from a group of highly respected experts in the penal field. I think it sums up the position the UK is in very well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/21/mps-law-on-prisoners-votes

A linked article reminds us that the ECHR has made it clear that "prisoner enfranchisement can be made conditional on the nature or gravity of the offence...; it is for the national authorities to decide". It reminds us of "the considerable lengths to which the former ECHR president and UK judge Nicolas Bratza [have] gone to ensure the court does not adopt a "micro management" approach". It also reminds us of the comfort the UK government's actions may give to Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slovakia and Ukraine in their challenges over things such as the right to segregate jews and gypsies in schools.

After all, the UK was the prime mover in establishing the ECHR, and the principal drafter of the Convention in 1950.

Harrumph. I think it is absolutely outrageous actually that the campaign is stretching logic in that way. Jews and gypsies are not convicted criminals. Their enforced segregation is wholly about racism. There is nothing less than a deliberate and disingenuous eliding taking place of two completely different concepts. The only connection between the two is segregation.

If fair and equal rights to law-abiding citizens in other countries can only be achieved by forcing through measures for prisoners here, then the unelected ECHR will connect anything to anything to change policy. Serious questions need to be asked of regimes that use apartheid in Europe and eye-wateringly high fines threatened unless they introduce adequate race relations acts.

And no one has said yet how permitting countries to apply voting rights selectively to certain categories of prisoners meets the definition of free elections for the people. What would be introduced would not meet the requirements of the Article as worded and it should have no place in setting a precedent for unrelated matters. They seem to be making it up as they go along.

I am appalled at the distortion and the disdain for decisions by all voters. The more I hear, the more my opinion is becoming entrenched. I'm really sorry but that is how I feel. When it comes to the highly emotive sounding "civic death", I feel that I am beginning to know it as one of the electorate who is having this thing imposed on me by remote and manipulative elites.

[Pabmusic]

Harrumph...

Wonderful!

...I think it is absolutely outrageous actually that the campaign is stretching logic in that way. Jews and gypsies are not convicted criminals. Their enforced segregation is wholly about racism. There is nothing less than a deliberate and disingenuous eliding taking place of two completely different concepts. The only connection between the two is segregation.

No - it's simpler than that. If one country can act in that way about one thing the ECHR doesn't like, another will feel it can too.

...If fair and equal rights to law-abiding citizens in other countries can only be achieved by forcing through measures for prisoners here, then the unelected ECHR will connect anything to anything to change policy. Serious questions need to be asked of regimes that use apartheid in Europe and eye-wateringly high fines threatened unless they introduce adequate race relations acts.

It is the UK that faces eye-wateringly high fines and compensation claims for acting illegally (if it eventually does, of course). As for the ECHR not being elected, courts aren't, are they? Our elected government ratified the Convention in 1950, though.

...And no one has said yet how permitting countries to apply voting rights selectively to certain categories of prisoners meets the definition of free elections for the people. What would be introduced would not meet the requirements of the Article as worded and it should have no place in setting a precedent for unrelated matters. They seem to be making it up as they go along.

The ECHR has said that voting rights can be withheld in some cases, such as 'gravity of offence', but that 'being convicted' is not good enough. As the ECHR is the arbiter of the Convention, its decision is all that is needed.

...I am appalled at the distortion and the disdain for decisions by all voters. The more I hear, the more my opinion is becoming entrenched. I'm really sorry but that is how I feel. When it comes to the highly emotive sounding "civic death", I feel that I am beginning to know it as one of the electorate who is having this thing imposed on me by remote and manipulative elites.

UK voters have not voted on this issue. Governments in 1870 and 1983 passed laws that disenfranchised convicted prisoners. They, at the time, were the elected representatives of 'the people' (although in 1870 elected by less than half the adult population). However, all the ECHR is saying is that a ban on voting because they are convicted prisoners is not good enough; we have to have a better reason - severity of offence, for instance. In the end, of course, we'll do exactly this - the fines will become too great - but probably not while there is still voter popularity to court.

[Flosshilde]

In the end, of course, we'll do exactly this - the fines will become too great - but probably not while there is still voter popularity to court.

If past & present governments had quietly gone ahead & specified which crimes/sentences voting restrictions applied to I wonder how much notice the public would have taken?

[Pabmusic]

If past & present governments had quietly gone ahead & specified which crimes/sentences voting restrictions applied to I wonder how much notice the public would have taken?

Indeed. The mischievous side of me does wonder if a very public argument with the ECHR over a rather technical issue, but one that can be sold as 'European' intervention in our democratic process, is useful to the government at present. Not that I'd ever say such a thing.

[french frank]

On your specific question, I think it depends on the broader environment. When people believe that the law is fair, politicians are principled and the economy is well-managed, a country is sufficiently at ease with itself not to worry unduly about mixed signals. As most people's memories don't go back that far, they are more inclined to ask questions.

Can you demand civil obligations and withhold civil rights?

[scottycelt]

Indeed. The mischievous side of me does wonder if a very public argument with the ECHR over a rather technical issue, but one that can be sold as 'European' intervention in our democratic process, is useful to the government at present. Not that I'd ever say such a thing.

I think you may well be right by not saying such a thing ...

I suspect Cameron is happy keep this thing going so as to continue to appear 'tough with Europe' and hence curry some much-needed favour with his backbenchers.

My own feelings on the issue itself are mixed. My gut instinct is to say that if people don't obey the rules of society they can hardly expect to enjoy the rights. On the other hand, I can see the argument for attempting to train prisoners to be good and responsible citizens by giving them every opportunity to be so. Also, if the government of the UK is to pick and choose what rules it will obey when it is a member of a club that is hardly setting a good example to any citizen whether they be in jail or not?

In any case, as it is suggested that only 10% of convicted criminals are likely to vote at elections that is hardly worth getting 'physically sick' over, imho.

And difficult for others to comprehend maybe but some might even decide to vote Conservative. ...

[Pabmusic]

I think you may well be right by not saying such a thing ...

I suspect Cameron is happy keep this thing going so as to continue to appear 'tough with Europe' and hence curry some much-needed favour with his backbenchers.

My own feelings on the issue itself are mixed. My gut instinct is to say that if people don't obey the rules of society they can hardly expect to enjoy the rights. On the other hand, I can see the argument for attempting to train prisoners to be good and responsible citizens by giving them every opportunity to be so. Also, if the government of the UK is to pick and choose what rules it will obey when it is a member of a club that is hardly setting a good example to any citizen whether they be in jail or not?

In any case, as it is suggested that only 10% of convicted criminals are likely to vote at elections that is hardly worth getting 'physically sick' over, imho.

And difficult for others to comprehend maybe but some might even decide to vote Conservative. ...

A very good post, Scotty.

[ahinton]

My own feelings on the issue itself are mixed. My gut instinct is to say that if people don't obey the rules of society they can hardly expect to enjoy the rights. On the other hand, I can see the argument for attempting to train prisoners to be good and responsible citizens by giving them every opportunity to be so. Also, if the government of the UK is to pick and choose what rules it will obey when it is a member of a club that is hardly setting a good example to any citizen whether they be in jail or not?

Fair points here, I think; the only problem with this is that, as I've written previously, the withdrawal of voting rights from prisoners seems to me to be an arbitrary one that rarely has any direct bearing upon the crimes for which they have been imprisoned so, having accepted the principle of imprisonment as punishment for crimes committed broadly rests upon curtailment of the freedoms of movement and action that may be enjoyed outside prison, who is to decide and upon what grounds the specific freedoms of action to be removed from prisoners? Since no one is suggesting that prisoners should forego all rights to eat, drink, sleep and exercise or to receive appropriate medical treatment at the expense of the state if and when required, it is clear that not all rights are withdrawn from prisoners - so why this particular one?

In any case, as it is suggested that only 10% of convicted criminals are likely to vote at elections

Again, by whom, upon what evidence sourced how and over what period of time and how reliably?

[scottycelt]

Again, by whom, upon what evidence sourced how and over what period of time and how reliably?

Good question. I used the word 'suggested' deliberately here. I don't know where that figure comes from or how it was arrived at.

There was a television discussion on the subject a week or two ago and this figure was mentioned as the 'likely' voting percentage. It was actually used as an argument by a supporter of giving prisoners the right to vote because he said the effect on a general election result would be almost negligible, so it was all a fuss about very little!

Personally, unless some organisation has taken a poll of prisoners' voting intentions if allowed to vote, I don't really see how anyone can have much of a clue?

[ahinton]

Good question. I used the word 'suggested' deliberately here. I don't know where that figure comes from or how it was arrived at.

There was a television discussion on the subject a week or two ago and this figure was mentioned as the 'likely' voting percentage. It was actually used as an argument by a supporter of giving prisoners the right to vote because he said the effect on a general election result would be almost negligible, so it was all a fuss about very little!

Personally, unless some organisation has taken a poll of prisoners' voting intentions if allowed to vote, I don't really see how anyone can have much of a clue?

Indeed - so, until and unless that does indeed happen and the results are reliable and published, it's hardly a relevant issue in terms of the argument as to whether this right should be restored to prisoners, is it?!

[Flosshilde]

Indeed - so, until and unless that does indeed happen and the results are reliable and published, it's hardly a relevant issue in terms of the argument as to whether this right should be restored to prisoners, is it?!

& even if creditable research did find that only 20% of prisoners would vote, it would still not be a valid argument either for allowing them to vote or not allowing them. It is a moral argument - so even if only 1 prisoner would vote prisoners should still be enfranchised & given the same opportunity as the rest of us to decide whether to take advantage of that opportunity or not.