Prisoners' Right to Vote in Political Elections
Q6. The ECJ has ruled that prisoners should not be denied the right to vote in political elections. Discuss.
In March 2004, John Hirst, a convicted killer, successfully took his case against the United Kingdom to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasbourg. (Hirst v The United Kingdom 2004). He claimed there was an infringement upon his human rights which was inconsistent with protocol 1 article 3 of the ECHR. The court ruled unanimously that his human rights had been violated. On April 11th 2011 the court ordered the UK to change the legislation on allowing prisoners to vote, with a time scale of six months to implement legislative proposals.
Protocol 1, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights maintains the right to free election. It states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and this was implemented into UK Law as part of the Human Rights Act in October 2000; however, the Human Rights Act 2000 does declare that “Some qualifications may be imposed on those that are eligible to vote”.
The UK, at present, administers a blanket ban on convicted prisoner’s ability to vote. Those currently on remand, imprisoned for contempt of court or default are only allowed to vote, which is unlawful contrary to the ECHR ruling. The ban on prisoners voting dates back 140 years with the Forfeiture Act 1870, enforcing a “civic death” on individuals who break the law. This was upheld in the Representation of the People Act 1983. This has evoked enormous controversy legally, politically and morally. Should convicted prisoners really have a say in how society is run?
Juliet Lyon, director of the prison reform trust and secretary-general of the penal reform international, argues that prisoners should have the right
In March 2004, John Hirst, a convicted killer, successfully took his case against the United Kingdom to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in Strasbourg. (Hirst v The United Kingdom 2004). He claimed there was an infringement upon his human rights which was inconsistent with protocol 1 article 3 of the ECHR. The court ruled unanimously that his human rights had been violated. On April 11th 2011 the court ordered the UK to change the legislation on allowing prisoners to vote, with a time scale of six months to implement legislative proposals.
Protocol 1, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights maintains the right to free election. It states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”. The UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights and this was implemented into UK Law as part of the Human Rights Act in October 2000; however, the Human Rights Act 2000 does declare that “Some qualifications may be imposed on those that are eligible to vote”.
The UK, at present, administers a blanket ban on convicted prisoner’s ability to vote. Those currently on remand, imprisoned for contempt of court or default are only allowed to vote, which is unlawful contrary to the ECHR ruling. The ban on prisoners voting dates back 140 years with the Forfeiture Act 1870, enforcing a “civic death” on individuals who break the law. This was upheld in the Representation of the People Act 1983. This has evoked enormous controversy legally, politically and morally. Should convicted prisoners really have a say in how society is run?
Juliet Lyon, director of the prison reform trust and secretary-general of the penal reform international, argues that prisoners should have the right