Prisoners and the Right to Vote
David Cameron and the Tory Party state that they are physically sick at the prospect of being forced to legislate to allow convicted prisoners the vote. Many on the left, though from my personal experience those temperamentally on the autocratic left, are inclined to agree with him. But I can think of at least four reasons to legislate to allow prisoners to vote.
1. The Practical Argument.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) demands that we should do so and until we do many civilised communities in Europe will think of us as hardly more democratic than, say, many of the ex-Soviet bloc. And the ECHR is not some Brussels dominated anti-democratic organisation but a Court largely established by British lawyers in the aftermath of WWII precisely to prevent the human rights’ abuses of the Nazi and Soviet regimes. We should be proud of it.
Just why get into this political fight, when the British prison population, the largest in Europe outside of the old Soviet bloc, is less than 100,000. It is actually less than 90,000, which means on average the 650 Parliamentary constituencies would have a possible 138 voters each, less than 0.02% of the electorate. Assuming that all voted the same way in an organised and consistent way that could have affected the result in 2 constituencies at the 2010 Election, Fermanagh and Tyrone, where they would have had to have voted for the Independent candidate and Hampstead and Kilburn, where they would have had to have voted Tory.
2. The Judicial Argument
One curious feature of the opposition to this reform on the left is that it assumes the perfection and consistency of the judicial system. In practise 10 years of service on the bench as a JP taught me much more scepticism. Big time fraudsters often get away without imprisonment and small time welfare benefit recipients often don’t. We all have pet examples, even the Daily Mail, when we are shocked that imprisonment has been meted out as the punishment. One thing is certain, the judicial system is not, and probably never could be consistent.
3. The Enlightened Argument.
Any judicial system worth its salt should not just be punitive in intent but also restorative. Depriving a prisoner of the vote not only shows what society thinks of him/her but does nothing to encourage him/her to take an active and responsible part in the society, which almost certainly s/he will re-join.
4. The Philosophical Argument.
The democratic struggles of the last three centuries, in this country and around the world, have centred on the Right to Vote. It is called a Right and not a privilege granted by the state. To attack this right is very dangerous territory indeed and yet the Tory Party and many on the un-democratic left want to dabble in this quagmire rather than simply accept the European Court’s view that all, including convicted prisoners, should have the right not privilege to vote.
It is not a privilege to be taken away by the state at the whim of the elected majority but an inalienable right. As soon as it is in the gift of those in power then there is no distinction in principle between our society and many others of which we all disapprove.
Tony Belton
Tony Belton 