´óÏó´«Ã½

Ìý

Commentators debate the government's announcement that it will allow prisoners to vote. This is inline with a European Court of Human Rights ruling that banning convicted killer John Hirst from the polls had breached his right to free elections.

The head of crime and justice at the think tank Policy Exchange that the change is undemocratic:

"The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg was only able to pass judgement on this matter because of an individual case lodged by an ex-lifer who had pursued his claim relentlessly for years. Rather than being determined by a free vote in Parliament, or by the judgement of our own courts, an individual litigant was able to appeal over the heads of the British public, the Government and the judiciary to an unaccountable foreign court. The result is a major change to national policy that did not originate here. This is not democratic."

In a similar vein that it shows David Cameron's weakness:

"So once again British ministers are not being allowed to govern in accordance with the wishes of the British public who elected them. Is this not replete with the most bitter irony? For this ruling gives prisoners the right to vote. But what's the point of any of us having the right to vote, when the government we thus elect is overruled by a bunch of judges in a foreign court?"

the idea that David Cameron had no choice but to accept the European ruling:

"David Cameron is said to be 'exasperated and furious' at having to lift the ban. It appears that it was looked at 'from every legal angle'. But it seems there was no alternative.
Ìý
"Hogwash. That is simply not the legal situation. It is perfectly possible for the UK legislature to derogate from the ECHR should it really want to. Indeed, the UK has done so before in respect of anti-terrorism measures. Of course, such a move would be extraordinarily illiberal. But it would not be impossible if David Cameron actually was 'exasperated and furious'.
Ìý
"Instead, the better explanation is that this is a liberal measure being implemented under the cover of illiberal noises."

the change, which she says fits in with Ken Clarke's hope for a rehabilitation revolution:

"Prisoners lose their liberty, not their citizenship. If the object is to punish them, protect the public and equip offenders to rejoin the community, then they should work, pay taxes - and vote. Creating a disenfranchised and idle sub-class merely encourages re-offending. There's no question of all prisoners getting the franchise. Very serious offenders will certainly remain barred."

Opposed to the change, ex-prisoner [subscription required] that prisoners aren't interested in politics anyway and points to impracticalities:

"How will voter fraud be prevented among some of the most experienced fraudsters in the country? Merely to ask such questions indicates the headaches that will afflict prison governors now tasked with becoming returning officers."

"The Criminal Law Act 1967 and the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland ) 1967 abolished the division between felonies and misdemeanours and, as a result, removed that ban on voting in Parliamentary elections. This was not an accidental oversight but followed a specific recommendation from the Criminal Law Review Committee in the mid-1960s that the specific penalties for felonies, such as being banned from voting for Parliament, did not need to be continued via other means. The ban was however restored by the Representation of the People Act 1969."

Links in full

•
•
•
•
•
•