Politicians in scramble to stop prisoners voting

Something is making British people angry. It is causing outrage in tabloid papers, and has been branded ‘absurd’ by politicians. Last February, MPs voted against it by a majority of 234 to 22; David Cameron says just contemplating it makes him feel ‘physically sick’.

The cause of this fury? The possibility that prisoners could get the right to vote.

Since 2005, Britain has been locked in a battle with the European Court of Human Rights over whether convicted felons should have a democratic voice. Then, John Hirst – a man imprisoned for murdering a woman with an axe – challenged the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting. The ECHR upheld his complaint: it ruled that by barring all inmates from the electorate, the British government is breaking the European Convention on Human Rights.

After years of wrangling, a deadline was set: today, at 4pm, the government must show that it will abide by the Convention. Yet it is still stubbornly opposed to felons at the ballot box. ‘No-one should be under any doubt,’ Cameron said recently: ‘prisoners are not getting the vote under this government’.

How to get out of this awkward situation? To delay the decision, a draft bill has been drawn up, laying out three options. Prisoners could get the vote only if their sentences are less than four years, or if they are jailed for less than six months. Or, none of them could get the vote at all.

The final option is how things stand now, and is the only one that actually breaks the European Convention. There are currently only a handful of countries, including Estonia, Hungary and Russia, where all felons are forbidden from voting.

Other nations have different policies: Bulgarian prisoners sentenced to more than ten years lose the vote; in Slovakia, it is up to the judge. In Germany, all prisoners have their say, except those who have committed crimes against the state, like terrorism.

In some of these nations, prisoner disenfranchisement is about stopping cruel, immoral criminals from influencing the government. In others, it as an extra punishment: as well as being denied to the right to freedom, especially harmful criminals are denied the right to have a democratic say.

Prisoners’ dilemma

Quite right, say some. Civilised society and its political systems depend on everyone abiding by rules. Criminals who break this ‘social contract’ forfeit the right to the liberties and privileges it entails: those who break the law should not make the law.

Others argue that breaking one rule cannot instantly disqualify someone from every one of a society’s values and protections. Civil rights are not something we have to earn: a say in their nation is something that everyone – prisoners included – should have access to.