Introduction
The right to suffrage is accorded to every citizen of a nation given some of the limits dictated in the constitution. When limits are discussed, these pertain to restrictions awarded to an individual that deters their free participation in the process of appointing the rightful individuals who would take office a seat in a public office. This makes the right to vote one of the supreme and basic rights of individuals. However, as mentioned earlier, this can be suspended as deemed necessary by law or as previously decided by the drafters of the constitution or legislation warranting sufficient basis for the decision. One of the reasons for suspending such right would be upon the commission of a crime. In almost every nation, including the United Kingdom, the practice of suspending an individual’s right to vote because of the reason of a crime is widely practiced. Nevertheless, not because something is widely practice would mean that it popularly accepted. In the United Kingdom, for example, the denial of the right to vote among prisoners had be revisited and amended by the Strasbourg Court (Bowcott 2012). The question everybody asked after the decision was made whether there was enough warrant for a judge to declare it otherwise, given an existing law prohibiting the participation of prisoners in the election process. In addition, supposed that there exist a substantial basis for the decision the question of its implication has also been raised. Would allowing prisoners to vote be good for the government and the nation? What impact can it bring? To this effect, this paper will attempt to enumerate the premise of the law that deters prisoners from voting. The corresponding merits of the points presented that would constitute to the decision of the Strasbourg Court of awarding the suspension of the prisoner’s right to vote as a violation of their human rights will also be assessed. Likewise, this paper will establish how the suspension of this limitation can be detrimental to the nation’s sovereignty and moral ascendency.
UK: The Prisoner’s Voting Rights
In the Standard Notes, SN/PC/01764 of the House of Commons, authors Isobel White and Alexander Horne distinguishes the reasons and identification of the voting franchise in the UK. The same document also enumerates how the decision of the Hirst case in October 6, 2005 facilitated for the amendment and implementation of the permission allowing prisoners the right to vote (White & Horne 2014).
Horne and White allowed the readers to recall the premise of the decision that deters prisoners from participating in elections. According to the authors, the Forfeiture Act of 1870 identifies all the suspended entitlement of prisoners to their right including the right to citizenship. However, The Act of 1870 was amended by the Criminal Act of 1967 paved the way for the Representation of the People Act in 1969. The Act of 1969 deters any person convicted and incarcerated in a penal institution from exercising their right to vote. While there was an existing law prohibiting the free exercise of this right by the incarcerated, there were evidences that would prove that majority of the postal votes made in 1950 were from penal facilities. Most of these postal votes were from Cardiff, Lincoln, Preston and Manchester. This was despite the existing and then binding Forfeiture Act of 1870 that has not been amended at that time. Since there were contradictions and oppositions raised regarding the suspension of the right of the incarcerated to vote indicated in the Act of 1870, the Joint Committee made a Draft of the Voting Eligibility Bill (Prisoners). This Draft enumerates the partial enfranchisement of prisoners from 1948 to 1969 (Murray, 2012).
Further endorsement for the reform in the prison practice had been initiated following the Voting Eligibility Bill. However, there were no enough compelling reasons for the awarding of its favourable decision. It was not until the UN Human Rights Committee through Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enumerates the rights of the prisoners. According to Article 25:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. .
The UK was one of the signatories in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thereby compelling the nation to abide by the provisions stated therein. That included Article 25 which give the prisoners the right to participate in the election. However, this particular provision, prisoner's the right to vote, has not yet been incorporated in the nation’s constitution until very recently. At that time, regardless of the commitment expressed by the UK in signing the covenant its government still refuse to enforce the change arguing that prisoners willfully surrendered majority of their rights when they committed a crime. In addition, the UK government did not see any compelling reasons on the merits of changing the existing law affecting the prisoners.
Beginning December of 1998 until March 2004, there had been a massive campaign calling to reform the system implemented in prison facilities in the UK. Among the clamour was to give the prisoners the opportunity to participate actively in the election and have their voices be heard regarding the plight and conditions of prisoners in the penal facility. Many of the advocates of this reform agenda believe that by if prisoners are awarded the right to vote, government representatives will bring their grievances towards the system to the proper forum and plenary. It was finally heard and granted with the judgment of the Hirst case in 2005. This was when the Strasbourg Court declared, “general, automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners, irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offences, is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights” (Bowcott, 2012).
Implications of the Strasbourg Court’s Decision on Prisoner’s Voting Rights
According to authors White and Horne, eighteen European countries does not have any electoral ban or restrictions against their incarcerated violators. These countries include Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland (White & Horne, 2014). On the other hand, both France and Germany practices no absolute restriction to the voting rights of the prisoners in their countries. However, certain provisions like automatic forfeiture of rights depending on the crime committed is held in France and crimes targeting the integrity of the state and disruption of democratic order are held in Germany. Five European nations, namely, Estonia, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, Georgia and Hungary implements full revocation of the right to vote among all prisoners held incarcerated in their territories (White & Horne, 2014).
Given the transition from a strict advocate of awarding no voting rights to the incarcerated to softening to give them, the allowance makes poorly of the justice system in UK. This analysis is made irrespective of the individual’s human rights. There was a basis for the UK government’s refusal earlier despite their commitment to the covenant with the UN on issues and concerns relating to the civil and political rights of an individual. Instead, this analysis was derived from the moral and political ascendency of UK to determine its nation’s fate according to the laws and legislation passed within the nation. This is in the belief that UK is the best judge of what it was deemed appropriate for the conditions within the country. This issues cannot be determined by another nation nor can an international organization determine it for UK. Hence, it is still within the jurisdiction of the UK government to refuse the pressure from any other nation and organization to enforce the reform.
The Strasbourg Court decision as per their statement, “is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights” (Bowcott, 2012), would bring the readers and political analysts the quoted provision and review whether there was breach to the specifications “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc, 1995). Base on the quoted provision in the European Convention on No Human Rights there are no forms of any torture nor inhumane and degrading treatment enforced with the revocation of the prisoner’s right to vote. The revocation of that right is only appropriate considering that the offender violated the integrity of the law. It is only just and appropriate that his civil and political rights be revoked. This is in the same merit that would disallow and disqualify a convicted government official from running for public office. That is to assert that it will be an issue of conflict of interest on top of the reason that it is also a moral judgment based on the ethical doctrine of Deontology. This doctrine states that awarding judgment should be based on the morality of an action of an individual that is in adherence to the rules of law (Waller, 2004). Therefore, the decision to initiate reform on the law that deters prisoners from participating in an election has no legal and moral basis. It is the jurisdiction of the UK government not to give into pressure from anyone concerning the governance of it nation. This action only warrants that the UK has no strong moral and political will to stand by its moral and political ground. That gives that sovereignty of the nation under great threat if the UK government cannot manifest a strong will of refusing pressure from the outside. Hence, it is necessary for the UK government to re-establish its mandate on its territory to assert that it has not lost its will for governance, as well as enforcing sovereignty.
References
Bowcott, O., 2012. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/22/prisoners-right-to-vote-echr[Accessed 5 October 2014].
Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc, 1995. Hellenic Resources Project. [Online] Available at: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art3[Accessed 5 October 2015].
Murray, C., 2012. A Perfect Storm: Parliament and Prisoner Disenfranchisement. Parliamentry Affairs, 66(3), pp. 511-539.
Office of the Higher Commisioner for Human RIghts, 2014. United Nations Human Rights. [Online] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx[Accessed 5 October 2014].
Waller, B., 2004. Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. 1st ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
White, I. & Horne, A., 2014. The Parliament of the United Kingdom. [Online] Available at: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01764.pdf[Accessed 5 October 2014].
