To: The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, The Prime Minister; The Cabinet; Members of the House of Commons
I write this open letter in response to the public outcry at the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) ruling, suggesting that withholding a prisoner’s right to vote goes against human rights law. Whilst I’m uncomfortable with ECHR’s assertion that this is a human rights, I do welcome the judgement, and would like to encourage you, using criminological theory, to respect this ruling, and hope to provide some suggestions as to how legislation changes could look in practice.
Scholars and practitioners from the field of offender desistance and rehabilitation commented about how allowing offenders to function as (insofar as possible) normal members of society leads to increased chances of desistance and lowers to likelihood of re-offending by improving a convict’s sense of self-worth and strengthening their ties to the community. I believe that affording some prisoners to opportunity to vote in political elections provides us with a unique opportunity to further encourage this population to change their behavioural habits and live as contributing members of their local communities.
Pomper and Sernekos (1991) uncovered the link between political activity (i.e. voting in an election) and having structural and tangible ties to the local community. These ties are also implicated as a critical factor for long-term desistance from crime (Laub and Sampson, 2001). Therefore, it seems logical to argue that allowing offenders to vote in elections results in an increase in their feelings of attachment to their local area, which in turn leads to a reduced risk of offending.
Naturally, there has been widespread criticism of the ECHR ruling – particularly from the right-wing, conservative, EU-sceptic sections of the British media. However, I urge you, as the lawmakers of this country, not to bow to public pressure. I understand that any move that seems to support this ruling would probably lead to reduced public support for your parties, which is why I address this letter to every member of the House. Cross-party support for new, reforming legislation would send a clear message to the British public – “yes, this idea seems counter-productive, but we are striving to reduce offending rates in your communities”. In addition, instead of appearing weak and submissive towards the Strasbourg Court, I personally believe that implementing changes would lead you all to benefiting from increased levels of support and respect from the academic community, as well as from charitable partners working towards reducing offending rates.
In terms of how changes could occur, I would not recommend lifting the ban on prisoner voting completely. Instead, I would suggest that a more sensible, and modest, idea would be to offer voting rights to those who are due to be released from their sentence within that particular Government’s term (i.e. before the next general election). This would mean that prisoners would have the opportunity to shape and influence the political landscape of the communities they will be released into, meaning that they feel an attachment to the area from the day of release. Of course, this would exclude indeterminate prisoners (representing 16% of all prisoners, accoring the Ministry of Justice statistics, 2011) from ever being able to vote whilst in prison, but this is a small price to pay if we can improve long-term desistance opportunities for the other 84% of prisoners.
I hope that these arguments have given you all, and anybody else who reads this open letter, something to think about, and I would encourage you to consult with experts in this field about the benefits of changing the law regarding prisoner votes before jumping on mass-media and right-wing bandwagons. I eagerly anticipate movement on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Craig Harper
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
To join this debate, feel free to:
(a) Comment below.
(b) Follow and contribute on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CraigHarper19
(c) Like the site on Facebook: www. facebook.com/LincPsychUK
Another argument might be to put it in a referendum, which is the most powerful form of public consultation. The UK general public sometimes seems to be irritated by Brussels (or even Whitehall) imposing decisions over their heads.
Putting it to a vote is something the public cannot argue with. Yes, holding a referendum can be costly, but if it is an emotive issue, then it can always be tacked onto the side of local council elections, or at the general elections.
I have been fortunate enough to look at this issue both at undergraduate and post graduate degree level, so I can offer some legal impetus. I accept that it does look bad that the Government is legally ‘forced’ to alter the law when the public and politicians in the UK are happy with it, yet this misunderstands the nature of our relationship with the ECtHR. We ratified the European Convention on Human Rights through enacting the Human Rights Act 1998, and this requires us to follow a judgement issued against us. The case in question is of course Hirst v UK, where the Grand Chamber said that a blanket ban was arbitrary and a ‘blunt instrument’. However, the Court did not require us to give all prisoners the vote (as I would personally wish), but instead only give some the vote (or at least not have a blanket ban). We cannot sign up to the Convention and ratify it, but then moan when we are subjected to a decision that we do not like. That’s the nature of undertaking international obligations and signing and ratifying treaties. To not comply opens the doors to accusations that the UK is flouting human rights commitments (and therefore how could we attack China for doing so?) and it would allow many prisoners the right to claim compensation for violation of human rights. I’d rather they had the vote than millions in compensations.
I do believe that voting and thus political rights, or as the Convention states in Article 3 of Protocol 1 the ‘free expression of the people’ are human rights. The wording of Article 3 can only be achieved through each adult having the right to vote. Indeed, the Grand Chamber in Hirst stated that voting was a ‘right, not a privilege’.
Philosophically speaking, I believe that it is the case that a person does not forgo all human rights due to being incarceration. Such a position is not supported in law at all. Lord Wilberforce in Rayond v Honey stated that “a prisoner retains all basic civil rights save those taken away expressly or by necessarily implication” and the ECHR stated in Hirst that “There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction”. Therefore is being detained a good enough reason to deny political rights? I think not. To suggest so is to argue that the non-virtuous should lose human rights and voting rights, which completely misunderstands what human rights are. All people have them, regardless of their virtues. They should not depend upon the moral character of the right-holder. Using moral-worth as a justification for the denial of rights is a very dangerous argument as it would allow, in this case, for the elected to choose the electorate, instead of the other way around. As such, a person should retain as many rights as is possible. Naturally, an incarceration person will lose the right to liberty and freedom of association by virtue of being locked up (which we accept as a legitimate restriction on rights for public protection and punishment reasons), yet any other rights must only be removed if there is an excellent argument for doing so. Removing the right to vote does not protect the public and nor is it a punishment (most criminals will not care less). The assumption is therefore that a prisoner retains full rights, and any restrictions must be justified, as opposed to the assumption being that a prisoner loses all rights and giving them any back must be justified.
Also, in response to a question (Should prisoners have the right to vote?) posted by Sky News on Facebook I wrote “Yes they should. Losing this right is not a punishment because most prisoners couldn’t care less. However letting them engage with the political process will make them feel more a part of society and therefore could aid with rehabilitation. You most certainly do not lose your rights when entering prison. You maintain all rights except the ones necessary for your detention, I.e loss of liberty, freedom of association etc. Prisoners are not rabid dogs who deserve horrific conditions. Remember, these people will be released back into society. What state would they be in? We need greater rehabilitation and giving the vote can help.”
Pingback: Re-addressing priorities: A proactive approach to offender rehabilitation « Craig Harper