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

[ahinton]

He could do but it isn't as easy as it sounds. I don't know the specific categories but a politically motivated crime and an identical one not motivated by politics could be in the same category. I have written a "book" here now. It can be summarised succinctly:

1. It is the wrong priority and a slap in the face to those struggling to be law-abiding at a time of economic crisis.

Wrong to you and certain others, yes - but we're not talking "priorities" here in the sense that restoring the vote to prisoners would men that some other legislative reform would accordingly have to be sacrificed.

2. It won't be of practical help to prisoners. They won't be able to effect change. It will, in fact, be a form of taunting.

Its sole intended "practical help to prisoners" is that which it would confer upon them, whereafter prisoners will be as able (or unable) to effect change as any other voters; no one would therefore be "taunted" with or by anything.

3. It is an unhelpful diversion from meaningful reform and an excuse for it not to happen. A sense of "we've done enough".

It is not such a diversion in that it would not stand in the way of other potential "meaningful reform".

4. It will lead to problems in prison management as political disputes arise, almost certainly on racial lines.

How and why? The only additional burden upon prison management is to ensure that voting papers get to and are collected from prisoners; political disputes, racially or otherwise oriented, are no more likely to arise in prison as a consequence of prisoners' enfranchisement than is the case now.

5. That could spill out onto our streets and lead to widespread racial disharmony during elections with impacts on voting.

Again, how and why? Neither the prisoners nor prison management would "spill out onto our streets" at election time - and why the racial reference again? What does prisoner enfranchisement have to do with racism?

6. It blurs the lines between those undergoing punishment and all other people. Society is best served by clear signals.

How does it do that? Prisoners are in prison; "all other people", including convicted and non-convicted criminals, are not. That is a line incapable of being blurred. In any case, not everyone "undergoing punishment" is in prison.

7. It leaves those sectioned under the Mental Health Act exclusively punished by a blanket ban. That's morally wrong.

Sorry, I don't quite get your drift here; am I being dense? Could you explain more clearly, please?

8. Selection of voting rights is irrational in terms of the wording of ECHR as either there are free elections or there are not.

Again, I don't get your drift here, unless you mean that elections aren't wholly "free" if prisoners are barred from participation in them, which isn't what you advocate, after all; again, a little explanation wouldn't amiss.

9. To distinguish between categories of offences is actually to retain the link between having no vote and irrelevant offences.

I think that you're right here, which is why I'd not advocate that; I am pleased to see you referring to "irrelevant offences", a category within which those involving interference with or corruption of the electoral process don't fall.

10. Minor offences for occupation of spaces could be subject to a punishment that is not applied to very serious crime.

Sure, but I don't quite see how this would impact directly on the issue of prisoners' voting rights.

11. A political distinction is very questionable anyway - who is to say what is political or not?

It is indeed a matter for widely divergent interpretation, which is why the original question posed by the thread has no easy or obvious answers beyond the fact that denial of prisoners' voting rights is a political decision to the extent that it is imposed by government, even if most of the crimes themselves may not necessarily lend themselves to easy description as overtly "political".

12. If Britain were to become like Greece, it could effectively label hundreds of thousands of demonstrators as terrorists.

One of my fears is that it could do this even without "becoming like Greece"; if it did so, however, those designated "terrorists" who are convicted of and handed custodial sentences for terrorism would then acquire "political prisoner" status by virtue of their crimes rather than merely as a consequence of their voting rights being withdrawn by government as is now the case for almost all prisoners.

13. It will devalue the good work of the ECHR in the eyes of a significant proportion of the electorate.

Frankly, I rather doubt that, largely because I am not convinced that "a significant proportion of the electorate" is even sufficiently exercised by the issue.

14. The electorate doesn't want it. Neither does the Government. It is dictating to the democratic process.

Whether or not the electorate wants it has not been put to an electoral test; whether or not the present or any future government either wants it or has to have it enforced upon it from above or risk transgressing EU legislation remains to be seen.

[ahinton]

Very little is being done or will be to address these issues.

Indeed - as I implied - which is an indictment on which we evidently agree.

Speechless! Probably just as well as I absolutely refuse to debate it.

Might you care to explain that? I'm not seeking to encourage - let alone force - you to "debate" whatever it is that you "absolutely refuse to debate", but do please clarify what it is that renders you "speechless".

No - but they are by post 1997 legislation. See Point 1 above.

The impression that you gave (whether or not it is the one that you intended to give) is that the public condemns all prisoners equally and your addition above now suggests that they've only done this since 1997; it simply doesn't ring true, so perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning here.

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, we shall just have to see how things proceed.

[amateur51]

We've had forty-seven years of soft law enforcement policies in the UK and I think the tide needs to turn.

I thought we had more people banged up now than ever before. Michael Howard will be devasted to hear this, Mandy

[MrGongGong]

We've had forty-seven years of soft law enforcement policies in the UK and I think the tide needs to turn.

Absolutely Mandy
far far too soft
what we need is more punishment and fewer pool tables ........

[teamsaint]

I thought we had more people banged up now than ever before. Michael Howard will be devasted to hear this, Mandy

but the big fish are still at large.....

america is very successful at law enforcement , too.

[ahinton]

I thought we had more people banged up now than ever before. Michael Howard will be devasted to hear this, Mandy

You thought correctly. Ah, yes, Michael Howard - he of the non-immortal phrase "prison works", which, when first I heard it, I thought was a reference to where prisoners work when in prison but which I soon realised was the kind of arrogant and complacent claim from which even an incompetent politician would prefer to shrink...

[Mandryka]

Absolutely Mandy
far far too soft
what we need is more punishment and fewer pool tables ........

Too right! One of the most disturbing things I noticed during my time in the Probation Service was the way in which 'clients' were given such free access to all the very culture they'd been part of when they'd initially offended: pool tables, cigarettes, pornography, trash television. You could just see them itching to offend again, so they could go 'home' (as they affectionately referred to HMP).

[french frank]

I'd been wondering what to do for Christmas

One of the most disturbing things I noticed during my time in the Probation Service was the way in which 'clients' were given such free access to all the very culture they'd been part of when they'd initially offended: pool tables, cigarettes, pornography, trash television. You could just see them itching to offend again, so they could go 'home' (as they affectionately referred to HMP).

[french frank]

I'd give three further arguments:

1. Cf. the recent legal position in Canada where withholding the prisoners' right to vote was ruled unconstitutional.

2. We have a legal obligation to obey the ruling (and forget the millions spent on Leveson; what about the potential millions in fines that we may have to pay?).

3. For me, the most telling: it is the way democratic countries have moved - from a hardline position that we held back in the 1870s to now - the 21st century. Do we, the UK, even as a minority among civilised countries, insist on staying back in the 19th c. for an outdated 'principle'?

[Lateralthinking1]

I'd give three further arguments:

1. Cf. the recent legal position in Canada where withholding the prisoners' right to vote was ruled unconstitutional.

2. We have a legal obligation to obey the ruling (and forget the millions spent on Leveson; what about the potential millions in fines that we may have to pay?).

3. For me, the most telling: it is the way democratic countries have moved - from a hardline position that we held back in the 1870s to now - the 21st century. Do we, the UK, even as a minority among civilised countries, insist on staying back in the 19th c. for an outdated 'principle'?

The Supreme Court of Canada made the decision in Canada.

On backwardness, the ex-prisoner who has taken the case to ECHR is John Hirst. After his first legal victory on prisoners' voting rights, John Hirst posted a blatantly rude video message on YouTube, celebrating with a bottle of champagne and lighting a large joint. Millions of viewers heard Hirst shouting to camera: "I'm celebrating for the 75,000 prisoners who will be getting the vote; and that includes murderers, rapists and paedophiles."

John Hirst had been sentenced to life imprisonment in June 1979 for hacking his landlady, Bronia Burton, to death by hitting her seven times with an axe. At his trial Hirst had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by diminished responsibility. Whilst in prison, Hirst had furthered his education, including the study of law. He had become one of the most litigious prisoners in the prison system.

Theoretically, the ruling as it currently stands would enable axe murderers etc to be excluded by Cameron and Clegg from voting rights in compliance with ECHR. In practice, Hirst can no doubt go back to the ECHR again to say that his rights were infringed and remain so by the UK. He may specifically argue that the enabling provisions are insufficient to address his case and that they must be tightened. This could then have implications across Europe. An international charter for the voting rights of the most violent criminals. Upsetting for Bronia's family. Not great for anyone who believes that their worldview is no substitute for democracy.

Cyprus complies with the ruling by only enabling prisoners who happen to be on day release on election day to vote.

The ECHR crosses a line with this ruling in that for the first time it partially defines the meaning of "free elections" rather than leaving it to a country's interpretation. If we do eventually have to comply, if only to prevent us being fleeced, Clegg would do us all a favour by supporting any Conservative proposal for us taking the Cyprus line. I am in no doubt that while Cyprus has not been challenged, Britain would be in the usual way of these things. Fine. We will be able then to push the ECHR into being more specific.

Yes. There is scope for leverage here rather than merely caving in but will the Lib Dem leader be up to it? The more specific the ECHR becomes, the greater the chances are for me or someone else to go to the ECHR on the basis that it needs to define more specifically the process of elections. How can unequal first-past-the-post votes mean freedom? That sort of thing. In other words, a way of establishing PR whether Governments or the electorate want it or not. Let's have something dictatorial on that too.

ECHR will no doubt have arguments against it but the more specific it is forced to be on prisoners, the less it can argue that it doesn't go into the detail of what constitutes "free elections". Its position on not requiring PR is weaker. That is how it must pay.

[Flosshilde]

Lat, referring back to ff's post about Cornton Vale, is it reasonable to deny a woman the vote if she was in prison simply because she was unable to pay a fine?

[Pabmusic]

...If there are four categories of prison - Category A for the most dangerous &c. - why could the court/judge not, having heard all the circumstances in order to pass sentence, not categorise a prisoner instead e.g. Categories A and B sentenced to lose their vote, C & D not? [But I would back ahinton's alternative - for the same reasons].

Categorisation (A, B, C, D) is an administrative action by the Prison Service intended to show likelihood of escape attempts and level of danger to the public should an attempt succeed. It determines the level of security needed during the sentence. It's not part of the punishment, not exactly linked to the offence (though the nature of the offence is a factor) as much as to the prisoner's behaviour, resourcefulness, links to organised crime, etc. A prisoner's security category may change several times during a sentence. For instance, a lifer serving a sentence for murder will begin a a cat. B (or A, dependant on the circumstances) but may be downgraded to C after 6 years or so, and then perhaps to D after 10 years (with a consequent move to an open - cat. D - prison). Prisoners with long sentence usually have a lower category at release. The irony is that, very occasionally, you get a prisoner who remains a cat. B (or even A) for the entire sentence, and is then released. There may be very good reasons why the security category remains high, but then the sentence ends and the person is released!

Your suggestion would restrict voting to medium-low risk prisoners, irrespective of offence. It might be workable, but still wouldn't be linked to the individual circumstances.

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat, referring back to ff's post about Cornton Vale, is it reasonable to deny a woman the vote if she was in prison simply because she was unable to pay a fine?

My ideal is that community service should be required of women and men who can't pay fines rather than us imprisoning them. If I were Prime Minister - hah! - I would make that a priority. There would additionally be a component of health support.

In the current framework - which includes many things we all reluctantly put up with - I have to say "no" to the vote. Not one person on this thread has argued that a line shouldn't be placed somewhere and I would place the line around all serving prisoners.

[amateur51]

I think you and those of your way of thinking sometimes underestimate the sophistication of the criminal mind....and its ability to make a convincing case (to you) for the crimes it commits. Believe you me, plenty of those people know exactly what they're doing and will continue to do it unti (too late) their bluff is called.

No need to tell me Mandy, i've seen every episode of Porridge