The Paradox of Prisoner Voting Rights

Introduction

The voting right poses as a significant right, which enables people to have faith in their projected future through their opinion and even their choice, including in the area of politics dissertation help. However, it has never been regarded as an absolute right as there have been derogations towards this right during different times and for different category of people. Notably, it is often hard accepting the fact that prisoners, who have committed grievous offences ought to be permitted to vote. However, Europe, as literature often describes it has purposed to give the most significant and greatest gifts to all individuals in the world and that is democracy, and this is easily derived through the struggle for significant equal rights for both men and women, minority groups, and even homosexuals to enable that have a freedom of expression, which is presently achieved through democratic development, and that also entails the prisoners’ right to vote.

Clearly, there are various ways of running and even organizing electoral systems, and even a wealth of differenced referred to as inter alia, which in terms of historical development ensured that cultural diversity, and the political thought in Europe was similarly practiced in all the contracting states, in order for them all to mould onto their own democratic vision. The Inter alia allows prisoners generally to continue enjoying all their fundamental rights, as well as their freedom as contained in the convention, apart from their right to liberty, wherefore detention that has been lawfully imposed significantly falls within the scope of the 5th article of the convention (guaranteeing the liberty and security rights). Notably, any other restrictions of the other rights ought to be justified. In this regard, there exists no question as pertaining whether a prisoners forfeits the rights of the convention because of his status as an individual that has been detained because of a conviction and neither is there any place within the convention system where broadmindedness or even tolerance are acknowledged as hallmarks of a democratic society, significantly for automatic disenfranchisement that is purely based on whatever may offend the opinion of the public.

Notably, the aforementioned standards of tolerance do not hinder a society practising democracy from taking significant steps towards protecting itself against various activities that are intended to destroy rights or even freedoms, which are set forth within the Convention. Significantly, article 3 of the convention enshrines the capacity of individuals to influence the law making power, and as such, it does not exclude the fact that restrictions, based on electoral rights may be imposed on any individual having seriously abused the position of the public or whose given conduct purposes to threaten or undermine democratic foundations or the rule of law. Noteworthy, the severe disenfranchisement measure ought not to be resorted to lightly and moreover, the proportionality principle requires a significant discernible and also a sufficient link existing between the conduct, sanctions and circumstances of the concerned individual. In other context, it is worth noting that an independent court that is applying an adversarial procedure should provide a strong safeguarding measure that stands against arbitrariness.

Supporting Case laws in the UK

In the case involving Hirst v the United Kingdom, having been found guilty of manslaughter and was sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicant was notably disenfranchised in the period of detention, in accordance with section 3, as stipulated in the representation of the People Act 1983 that applied to individuals convicted, and were serving a given custodial sentence. In the year 2004, he was left free and released from prison but on licence. In this regard, the applicant significantly alleged that being a convicted prisoner that was on detention, he had fallen subject to a specified blanket ban on voting during elections. Clearly, the ECHR held that this case brought forth a violation of the Article 3 of the protocol No. 1 of the ECHR (right to participating in free elections) on account of discriminate, as well as automatic restrictions on the rights of the applicant to vote, owing to his status of being a convicted prisoner.

Similar to this case, is the case that involved the Greens and M.T v the UK, wherefore, both the applicants were convicted and as such, were service a prison sentence. Notably, this case was concerned with the failure in the amendment of the legislation that had imposed a blanket ban on voting that was bestowed in the national, as well as European elections for individuals that were considered as convicted prisoners and who were in detention in the UK. In this regard, the court held that article 3 of the protocol no. 1 of the ECHR had been violated and it further found out that the violation was owing to the UK’s failure in implementing the grand chamber judgement as stipulated in the case of Hirst v the UK as provided above. Given the particular repetitive applications that the court had received prior to the 2010 general elections and the 6 following months, it is evident that the court went further to apply its procedure on pilot judgement to the case. Moreover, under article 46 of the ECHR, that was concerned with binding force as well as execution of judgements, it is evident that the UK needed to introduce various legislative proposals, in order to amend the legislation that was relation to the 6 months of the Greens judgement to it becoming final with a perception of the enactment of the electoral law onto achieving compliance with the judgement of the court in the Hirst case, in accordance with any time-scale that was determine by the Europe committee of ministers’ council.

Similarly, is the case that involved McLean and Cole v the UK, in which case, the applicants posed as two prisoners, who raised a complains that were had fallen subjects of the blanket ban, concerned with voting in elections and were hindered from voting in past and even future elections. In this case, the court declared the complaints of the applicants as inadmissible as stipulated in article 3 of the protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, owing to the fact that the complaints were filed too late, or prematurely or even because they were concerned with elections that had not been stipulated in the ECHR.

---

1. Hirst (No. 2) v the United Kingdom
2. section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983
3. Greens and M.T v the UK
4. The procedure on pilot judgement had been developed by the court as a significant technique of identifying various structural problems that were underlying the repetitive cases that were standing against many countries that was imposing an obligation on various states towards addressing those kinds of problems.
5. article 46 of the ECHR,
6. McLean and Cole v the UK

Moreover, it the case of Dunn and Others v the UK, a total of 131 applicants who were all prisoners complained about the inter alia, concerned with the blanket ban that was related to the rights of prisoners on voting in the UK and in particular, the perception of the ‘forthcoming’ elections that was related the UK or Scottish parliaments. In this regard, the court posed a declaration that the applications were inadmissible. Wherefore, it observes that particularly, the applicants raised their complaints, but with regard to forthcoming elections. In this context, assuming that they had articulated their complaints sufficiently regarding potential exclusions from the elections, the court found out that they failed in adducing various necessary facts that could substantiate their complaints as they had not confirmed that their detention was a post-conviction on the specified election date in question.

The case involving Fifth and Others v the UK was concerned with 10 prisoners who, based on the automatic consequences that followed their conviction, as well as detention, they were unable to vote in the general elections of the European parliament. In this case, the court acknowledged the steps that the UK had taken with the draft bill publication and report that had been made by the Parliamentary joint committee that was appointed with the task of examining the bill. However, the legislations purposefully remained unamended, and as such, the court made a conclusion that article 3 of the protocol no 1 of the ECHR had been violated, owing to the fact that the case had similar implications that that of Greens and M.T. In this regard, the court significantly rejected the claims of the applicants, who were in need of compensation as well as legal costs. Based on the previous judgements that were concerned with the right of prisoners to vote, it was significantly held that the finding of the violation of the right constituted a sufficiently just satisfaction for any form of non-pecuniary damage that the applicants had sustained. On the other hand, as regarding the claim of the applicants in need for legal claims legal costs, it is evident that the court referred to the remarks it had mad in the case of Greens and M.T, paragraph 120 and stated clearly that it was unlikely awarding costs, especially in various future follow-up cases. In the present applicants, based on the lodging of their applications, they were mandated to cite article 3 of the protocol 1 of the ECHR, and they alleged that they had been detained, and this was pursuant to conviction and prison sentence of the election date in question. Otherwise, they claimed that they were eligible to vote in the given election. In this regard, the court found out that the lodging in such a case was straightforward and as such did not mandate any form of legal assistance. Therefore, it made a conclusion that the legal costs as they were claimed, were not reasonable and were necessarily incurred.

---

7. Dunn and Others v the UK
8. Fifth and Others v the UK

Finally, in the case of moohan v the UK and Gillon v the UK, the prisoners who were already serving their prison sentences were notably ineligible to voting in the election that was organized in Scotland since the domestic legislation mandated that the convicted person was incapable legally, of voting in the referendum if at the time of voting, he was detained in any given panel institution whilst pursuing the sentence that had been imposed on him. In this regard, the court made a declaration that the claim of the applicants were inadmissible, as the said complaints were incompatible with the initial provisions of the convention and its protocols. As such, it noted that particularly, the established case law significantly indicated that the court made a consideration that article 3 of the protocol no.1 was not applicable to the said referenda.



Conclusion

The rights, which have been guaranteed in Article 3 (Protocol No. 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights are noted to be crucial in the establishment and maintenance of various foundations of effective, as well as meaningful democracy, which has significantly been governed by the existing rule of law. Nonetheless, these rights are not absolute, owing to the fact that there are rooms, which have been created for implied limitations and as such, contracting states ought to be allow a specific margin of appreciation in this given sphere.

Looking for further insights on The Concept of Living Together? Click here.

---

9. McHgh and Others v the UK
10. moohan v the UK
11. Gillon v the UK
12. Article 3 (Protocol No. 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Bibliography

Statutes

Article 3 (Protocol No. 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 46 of the ECHR

Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983

Cases

Dunn and Others v the UK

Fifth and Others v the UK

Gillon v the UK

Greens and M.T v the UK

Hirst (No. 2) v the United Kingdom

McHgh and others v the UK

McLean and Cole v the UK

Moohan v the UK