Prisoners and Voting Reform

By Alexandra White Meek, L6

For the last decade, there has been an on-going debate as to whether prisoners should have the right to vote, because they have had their liberty taken away from them. Since the 19^th century, the UK has said that prisoners have been confined for a reason, and therefore they shouldn’t have a say in the running of the country. Despite the European Court saying that this practice was unlawful in 2004, the UK Parliament has made no move on changing this policy. More recently, changes have been considered. In February 2011 in the House of Commons, a back-bench debate took place, and the MPs continued to support Jack Straw in his attempt to reject the proposed motion.

In April 2011, the European Court stated that it would give the UK 6 months in order to introduce legislative proposals. Later that year in September, the UK Parliament requested an extension on this deadline, in order to review the case.

Director of the Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon,has said: “People are sent to prison to lose their liberty nottheir identity. The UK’s out-dated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable. Experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments believe people in prison should be able to exercise their civic responsibility. The European Court has made clear in today’s judgement the UK’s legal obligations to overturn the blanket ban.”

More recently, two prisoners, one having committed murder, applied to be able to vote in the EU election, however were denied this privilege, and were told that they would not gain this until the law was changed or they were released. One of them, Peter Chester, having served his minimum sentence, was reviewed by the Parole Board, but was put back into prison due to him apparently being too dangerous. Therefore, many believe that this is a positive move by the government, because some would say that people such as Chester should not be able to vote. The PM, David Cameron stated to the Commons that this ruling was, “a great victory for common sense.”

This case and the debate is useful for AS students contemplating Human Rights and the implications of a codified UK Constitution in Unit 2. The nature of the UK's relationship with the EU, or rather the European Court of Human Rights which is different to EU itself is also an issue here.