NationStates Jolt Archive

Yet another wonderful decision from the European Court of Human Rights.
Banning convicted prisoners from voting in elections breaches their human rights, a European court has ruled.

UK Legislation will now be reviewed following the judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, Lord Chancellor Lord Falcolner has announced.

But he told the BBC this did not mean all of the UK's 70,000 inmates would be given the vote.

The Strasbourg court ruled that UK law banning ex-prisoner John Hirst from voting had breached his human rights.
More here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4315348.stm)

This is utter madness. If somebody has committed a crime against society then I don't see why they should have any say over what happens in that society. They lose their rights, that's the whole purpose of prison. This is yet another example of why we need to remove the influence of European law over British law.

As far as I know on the continent, prisoners lose the vote depending on the severity of the crime, while in America they don't get it at all in all but two states. So what do you all think of giving prisoners the vote?

Well... I think it ought to depend. A one-size fits all solution never works, unless the solution is for a single problem.

If, while in prison, their assets are being taxed then give them the vote. Taxation without representation died a long time ago. If they aren't, then no.

As for those who have served their time...why not? They've paid 'their debt to society' and should be treated no differently from anyone else.

Oh, I do so love the ECHR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights)! Sweden already complies with this ruling, of course. :)

This is a great day for the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)!

This is utter madness. If somebody has committed a crime against society then I don't see why they should have any say over what happens in that society. They lose their rights, that's the whole purpose of prison.

The purposes of prison are various (punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation) but none are to dehumanize the criminal.

And, at least in the U.S., criminals do not lose rights. They can still peacebly assemble, they can still express their opinions, they can enter into legally binding contracts, they are protected from unreasonable searches, they are afforded due process in any other legal proceedings, etc.

On the whole it does seem rather strange that they lose this one right.

The purposes of prison are various (punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation) but none are to dehumanize the criminal.

And, at least in the U.S., criminals do not lose rights. They can still peacebly assemble, they can still express their opinions, they can enter into legally binding contracts, they are protected from unreasonable searches, they are afforded due process in any other legal proceedings, etc.

On the whole it does seem rather strange that they lose this one right.
If they're felons they also lose the right to own firearms. I think they make an exception for blackpowder guns though.

If they're felons they also lose the right to own firearms. I think they make an exception for blackpowder guns though.

Thanks for the info, I did not know that.

The principle still stands though.

Yet another wonderful decision from the European Court of Human Rights.

More here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4315348.stm)

This is utter madness. If somebody has committed a crime against society then I don't see why they should have any say over what happens in that society. They lose their rights, that's the whole purpose of prison. This is yet another example of why we need to remove the influence of European law over British law.

As far as I know on the continent, prisoners lose the vote depending on the severity of the crime, while in America they don't get it at all in all but two states. So what do you all think of giving prisoners the vote?
There is no one size fits all rules when applied to prisoners. Can you name ALL of the number of offenses you can be jailed for?

While in prison, no, I do not believe inmates should have the right to vote. Inmates lose rights upon going to prison, viz. the right to choose where to go, when to go there, what to eat, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. I have no compunction with the right to vote being one of the rights they lose while in prison. After they have been released-seeing as how the point of the modern prison system is rehabilitation-I see no problem with giving them the right to vote again.

i see know point of denying them the vote once their sentence is severed, so I also believe that people who are serving non-custodial sentences at the time of election should be allowed to vote, they have not respected the laws so why should they have a say in the insitgators of the laws while serving their sentence for the crime!

In America, felons lose the right to vote for the rest of their lives. If you go to prison for a misdemeanor you can vote after you get out. I've never heard of a prisoner voting.

In America, felons lose the right to vote for the rest of their lives. If you go to prison for a misdemeanor you can vote after you get out. I've never heard of a prisoner voting. That's a violation of reason. There is a reason felonies don't have life sentences… because they often don't merit them. Why should your punishment continue beyond what the court prescribes?

Uhm...what's wrong with giving ex prisoners the right to vote?

Christ, people like to see all criminals as some kind of "different breed" of people who are somehow inherantly evil. It may be the case sometimes, but not always. If you've being in prison for 10+ years, most likely you are a completely different person when you come out. Hell, you are a completely different person after 10 years of doing anything.

If you marginalise ex criminals by not allowing them to vote, they aren't ever going to feel like normal people ever again. As a result, they'll care less about their freedom, and the society they live in, and feel they might as well return to their criminal lifestyle. Just like chopping off a hand of a thief is a completely moronic punishment - if they've got no hand everyone will know they are a thief, not trust them, not employ them, and so you'll turn to crime to make a living.

In America, felons lose the right to vote for the rest of their lives. If you go to prison for a misdemeanor you can vote after you get out. I've never heard of a prisoner voting.
How can that be justified under the Constitution? Does the Constitution not guarantee the right to vote?

Prisoners are human beings.
Human beings have a right to have a say in how they are governed(see Universal Delcaration of Human Rights)
Therefore, prisoners have a right to have a say in how they are governed.

Give em the vote.

How can that be justified under the Constitution? Does the Constitution not guarantee the right to vote?
There is no right to vote in the constitution, only the right against unequal application of the right to vote in certain circumstances.

Uhm...what's wrong with giving ex prisoners the right to vote?
In this case it's not ex convicts, it's people who are currently serving a prison sentences. Ex convicts have always been allowed the vote in the UK, but now prisoners will be as well.

There is no right to vote in the constitution, only the right against unequal application of the right to vote in certain circumstances.
Ok, I can see how that applies to convicts...but ex-cons?

There is no right to vote in the constitution, only the right against unequal application of the right to vote in certain circumstances.

26th Amendment.

In this case it's not ex convicts, it's people who are currently serving a prison sentences. Ex convicts have always been allowed the vote in the UK, but now prisoners will be as well.

From the original article:

The Strasbourg court ruled that UK law banning ex-prisoner John Hirst from voting had breached his human rights.

Ex-prisoner, not current prisoner.

26th Amendment.
"...or by any State on account of age."


If it isn't because of age, the right to vote can be restricted all you want. That's why criminals don't have the right to vote.

Why are you people turning this into a discussion about US laws? This is about a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

If it isn't because of age, the right to vote can be restricted all you want. That's why criminals don't have the right to vote.

That isn't the point I was getting at. You stated that there is no right to vote but a guarantee that the right to vote cannot be restricted in certain ways.

Well, that doesn't stand to reason does it? You have to have a right to vote to protect it from certain restrictions. The Amendments that protect the right to vote from infringement on the basis of age, sex and race imply a right to vote.

I should have cited more Amendments to bare out my point but I got lazy. :p

Ex-prisoner, not current prisoner.
Ah, it seems I misinterpreted it. I think it's fair enough to let convicts vote after release, but I still don't think that people convicted of the most serious crimes like murder or manslaughter should be entitled to vote. This guy was sentenced to life, which means he's out on license for the rest of his life. So I think the court made the wrong decision.

I agree with the ECHR decision. The prisioners are citizens, and deserve to vote as citizens.

If they're felons they also lose the right to own firearms. I think they make an exception for blackpowder guns though.

I believe in the US, that varies from state to state.

That isn't the point I was getting at. You stated that there is no right to vote but a guarantee that the right to vote cannot be restricted in certain ways.

Well, that doesn't stand to reason does it? You have to have a right to vote to protect it from certain restrictions. The Amendments that protect the right to vote from infringement on the basis of age, sex and race imply a right to vote.

I should have cited more Amendments to bare out my point but I got lazy. :p
No, it doesn't, because your right to vote can be restricted to the point of no end, just that the restrictions can't be because of sex, race, or age.

I agree with the ECHR decision. The ex-prisioners are citizens and have already payed for their crimes, so they deserve to vote as normal citizens.

Prisoners have the right to vote in Canada. Their vote does not apply to the riding in which the prison exists, it applies to their home riding.

Most prisoners will get out of prison someday. If the purpose (or at least one of the purposes) of prison is rehabilitation, then allowing and encouraging prisoners to exercise their civic duties is important. It is one step to teaching them responsibility: for their own actions, and to the community.

As for whether ex-prisoners have the right to vote, that's not even worth debating. They are citizens of the country and regardless of their past, have a right to participate in the democratic process.

No, it doesn't, because your right to vote can be restricted to the point of no end, just that the restrictions can't be because of sex, race, or age.

OK, but right there you admited that there is a right to vote.

I'm not saying that such a right can't be restricted. I am saying that such a right exists, even though it is not explicitly stated, and that it is an unreasonable restriction to prevent ex-cons from voting.

OK, but right there you admited that there is a right to vote.

I'm not saying that such a right can't be restricted. I am saying that such a right exists, even though it is not explicitly stated, and that it is an unreasonable restriction to prevent ex-cons from voting.
Rights can not be abridged without a compelling state interest. This one can be abridged (and without a compelling interest), and so is not a right, but a privilege.

I do pontificate upon the following: how many more votes will this motion procure for the party who proposes the most liberal amendments to the penal system?

The premise itself is risable, prisoners are imprisoned since they are worthy of retribution, and deemed unfit for society at that juncture, and one accordingly wonders why we are compelled to afford them the right to vote in society's elections.

The premise itself is risable, prisoners are imprisoned since they are worthy of retribution, and deemed unfit for society at that juncture, and one accordingly wonders why we are compelled to afford them the right to vote in society's elections.

Because the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says we are. Not to mention that it is the right(tm) thing to do.

Because the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says we are. Not to mention that is the right(tm) thing to do.
Which is why Britain needs to withdraw from the Convention.

Rights can not be abridged without a compelling state interest. This one can be abridged (and without a compelling interest), and so is not a right, but a privilege.

The Amendments so far have extended the right and restricted legislatures' ability to abridge the right.

Show me the federal case that decides that states do not need a compelling state interest to abridge the right to vote.

The premise itself is risable, prisoners are imprisoned since they are worthy of retribution..

Or because we wish to deter other such behavior. Or because we wish to rehabilitate them. Or because we wish to incapacitate them for a period of time.

You are imposing a single value to our system of punishment that has historically proven to drawn from many values in its self-justification.

I fully support the rights of convicts to vote whilst in prison. I wish them the best of luck in getting to the polling station :p

Because the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms says we are. Not to mention that it is the right(tm) thing to do.

I sincerely doubt that. Prisoners are, quite evidently, imprisoned though an act of benevolence towards society, they are not fit for social interaction or life, sinc ethey are serving internment sentences, nor should we accord them the honour of participating in elections wherin they will vote according to the party who proposes the most liberal penal code, not overall policy.

I sincerely doubt that. Prisoners are, quite evidently, imprisoned though an act of benevolence towards society, they are not fit for social interaction or life, sinc ethey are serving internment sentences, nor should we accord them the honour of participating in elections wherin they will vote according to the party who proposes the most liberal penal code, not overall policy.

I can't think of any worse reason to deny someone the right to vote than the fact that we don't like the choice they would make.

Ex-prisoners should have the same right to vote as anyone else but I think that removing that right during the sentence is justified given that the point of prison is to severely limit rights as a punishment. That doesn't mean, however, that once you commit a crime you forfeit all your rights forever.

Which is why Britain needs to withdraw from the Convention.

Haha! Good luck! It's a prerequisite for so many interactions in Europe, you would become a pariah if you did.

I sincerely doubt that.

Doubt no more! The court has ruled.

Prisoners are, quite evidently, imprisoned though an act of benevolence towards society, they are not fit for social interaction or life, sinc ethey are serving internment sentences, nor should we accord them the honour of participating in elections wherin they will vote according to the party who proposes the most liberal penal code, not overall policy.

"I don't like whom they'd vote for" is a piss poor excuse.

I can't think of any worse reason to deny someone the right to vote than the fact that we don't like the choice they would make.

Ex-prisoners should have the same right to vote as anyone else but I think that removing that right during the sentence is justified given that the point of prison is to severely limit rights as a punishment. That doesn't mean, however, that once you commit a crime you forfeit all your rights forever.

Not in the slightest, however, prison is, at its essence, the removal of one's liberties and frivolities by means of retribution, and I believe, as you must do so similarly, that the capacity to vote somewhat contravenes the inherent premise of imprisonment.

Haha! Good luck! It's a prerequisite for so many interactions in Europe, you would become a pariah if you did.

How many people would truly be concerned if we did, prisoners are unable to vote at present, and we are not as yet pariahs are we?

Haha! Good luck! It's a prerequisite for so many interactions in Europe, you would become a pariah if you did.
As far as I know there's no requirement to be signatory to the convention to be a member of the EU. Anyway, if other European countries want to impose their will on our domestic laws and override our sovereignty, I think we should be questioning wether we want to interact with them.

How many people would truly be concerned if we did, prisoners are unable to vote at present, and we are not as yet pariahs are we?

Actually, effectively, from today, they are. The court's rulings are legally binding. Your laws will change and you will comply. You have every time in the past. This is not the first time the UK has been ruled against.

Actually, effectively, from today, they are. The court's rulings are legally binding. Your laws will change and you will comply. You have every time in the past. This is not the first time the UK has been ruled against.

And you wonder why we resent EU intrusion into our affairs, it is similar to the Medieval Pope but worse....

I agree, prisoners should not have the right to vote. Besides the issue of the abuse of their rights, and the fact that they should be removed from society, we are paying to much for them to be there anywhere, we should not be accomadating them anymore than we have too.

In the Us, Maine and Vermont are the only states to allow prisoners to vote.

On the other hand, relased prisoners, who have served their time should be able to vote. There are some states where prisoners cannot vote. In 13 states prisoners are never allowed to vote. I can't find which states these are, if anyone knows please share.

I agree, prisoners should not have the right to vote. Besides the issue of the abuse of their rights, and the fact that they should be removed from society, we are paying to much for them to be there anywhere, we should not be accomadating them anymore than we have too.

In the Us, Maine and Vermont are the only states to allow prisoners to vote.

On the other hand, relased prisoners, who have served their time should be able to vote. There are some states where prisoners cannot vote. In 13 states prisoners are never allowed to vote. I can't find which states these are, if anyone knows please share.

As far as I know there's no requirement to be signatory to the convention to be a member of the EU.

Actually, there is. Review the demands put on the new nations who joined just a few years ago - they all had to ratify it.

"All EU members have ratified the Council of Europe's European Convention of Human Rights and accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights as a prerequisite for joining the EU. This means, for example, that all member states have abolished the death penalty before joining the European Union." (http://www.hrea.org/learn/guides/europe.html#EU)

Anyway, if other European countries want to impose their will on our domestic laws and override our sovereignty, I think we should be questioning wether we want to interact with them.

This is not other European countries. This is a supranational court, convention and council the UK was one of the founding members of (together with Belgium, Denmark, France, The Republic of Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden). Its founding treaty is even called "The Treaty of London."

And you wonder why we resent EU intrusion into our affairs, it is similar to the Medieval Pope but worse....

You were one of the original founders. Stop blaming this on the EU - the Convention and the Council pre-date the EU. Are you all this ignorant of basic European post-war history?

I wanna be a prisoner. They got it soooooooo good

I'm not sure of just how far-reaching the EU is, exactly. Is it just an alliance for economic reasons, or is it similar to the U.S.A., where all states are part of the same country?

I'm not sure of just how far-reaching the EU is, exactly. Is it just an alliance for economic reasons, or is it similar to the U.S.A., where all states are part of the same country?

That's a difficult question to answer. Read here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union)

Also, while accepting the ECHR's jurisdiction is a prerequisite for EU membership, the Court itself is not an EU organ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) and has had its jurisdiction accepted by non-EU members as well.

That's a difficult question to answer. Read here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union)

Also, while accepting the ECHR's jurisdiction is a prerequisite for EU membership, the Court itself is not an EU organ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) and has had its jurisdiction accepted by non-EU members as well.
Well, it looks as though the EU isn't going out of its scope by having this ruling and making member countries comply, so unless someone who disagrees can come up with a legal reason against it, the decision seems to be valid to me.

I wanna be a prisoner. They got it soooooooo good


yeah, I am not sure your right about that.

I think we live in a democracy which is "by the people for the people of the people" and all that I have read in biology

I think its disgusting how a country claiming to be democratic can stop voting because of a petty crime or a night in jail

also what is the point I would hardly say stopping prisoners voting is helpful in anyway to stopping them commiting crimes remember for a few thousend years we have used very harsh punishment and what wonders that has worked :rolleyes:

(forgive the spelling my comp is hardly working at the moment)

I think we live in a democracy which is "by the people for the people of the people" and all that I have read in biology

I think its disgusting how a country claiming to be democratic can stop voting because of a petty crime or a night in jail
I don't know how many countries that use misdemeanors as an excuse to restrict the right to vote, but usually it's just felonies. I also don't know how many countries differentiate between misdemeanors and felonies.

Oh, I do so love the ECHR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights)! Sweden already complies with this ruling, of course. :)

This is a great day for the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights)!

Koo-koo, koo-koo, koo-koo. :rolleyes: As far as I am concerned, you forfeit your right to vote at the same time you forfeited your right to be free after committing your crime.

Hooray for the ECPHRFF. It bears as much weight in the real world as the KKK does on civil rights in America.

Hooray for the ECPHRFF. It bears as much weight in the real world as the KKK does on civil rights in America.
This is very much not true. Every EU country has to incorporate it into law.

Prisoners are human beings.
Human beings have a right to have a say in how they are governed(see Universal Delcaration of Human Rights)
Therefore, prisoners have a right to have a say in how they are governed.

Give em the vote.

Fucked up human beings. Sure why dont we take the vote of a first degree murderer, I mean, he tortured and killed 25 people but his mind may be straight enough to vote. Right?

Koo-koo, koo-koo, koo-koo. :rolleyes: As far as I am concerned, you forfeit your right to vote at the same time you forfeited your right to be free after committing your crime.

Nope. Not in any country that accepts the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

Hooray for the ECPHRFF. It bears as much weight in the real world as the KKK does on civil rights in America.

Thank you for that lovely display of sheer ignorance. Perhaps you should actually have an idea of the powers of the ECHR before you open your yap and make a further unknowledgeable spectacle of yourself?

Sending someone to prison doesn't strip them of their citizenship. I assume that a prisoner must still pay rent on a property they own, and I assume they still pay taxes on any money they earn? So, why wouldn't they be able to vote? I don't understand that argument.

Not allowing prisoners the vote sounds rather like the actions of a totalitarian regime that sends people to prison for political reasons to get them outside of the political process.

Democracy is above petty laws in society.
I fully and wholeheartedly agree with the EU Court here - because I failed to pay my parking ticket, I'm no longer a citizen?
Sorry, but wherever this is practised, it's just another illustration of a "justice" system based on revenge. In other words: Utter Bullshit.

Fucked up human beings. Sure why dont we take the vote of a first degree murderer, I mean, he tortured and killed 25 people but his mind may be straight enough to vote. Right?

Come on, you can do better than that. Throw in something more extreme, like "and enjoys torturing small fluffy animals"

As far as I know on the continent, prisoners lose the vote depending on the severity of the crime,

And there we have the key sentence in your post. You didn't bother to check, you stated your dodgy opinion as a fact and you've made yourself look like a nob.

Try doing some research and find out how many EU nations don't restrict voting rights in prison (I'll give you a clue, there are several of them that fit this category) and then go back to reading the Daily Express for your opinions and see how wrong you are.

Ouch - that was unnecessary.


In the US, you lose your right to vote if you have committed a felony. You can get the right back after a certain period of time (i.e. done your time).

In the US, you lose your right to vote if you have committed a felony. You can get the right back after a certain period of time (i.e. done your time).
Uh uh. If you're a felon in the U.S., you lose your right to vote for life.

Uh uh. If you're a felon in the U.S., you lose your right to vote for life.

oh, good, i thought the creater of this thread was implieing a loophole in America's perfection!

Uh uh. If you're a felon in the U.S., you lose your right to vote for life.
I thought some states allow felons to vote after they've been released.

oh, good, i thought the creater of this thread was implieing a loophole in America's perfection!

That better be sarcasm.

I have never, ever, understood why prisoners don't get the vote. It just seems like something so basic about democracy, but to find out they can't vote.... :confused: Surely if someone's been detained by their government, they'd be the people who'd be MOST interested in having a say in said government's running? I think we're a bit topsy turvy here. Governments aren't there to tell people what to do. If someone commits a crime, yes, governments are tasked with organizing their rehabilitation and removal from main stream society, but the government can't take away that person's right to tell the government what to do, i.e THE VOTE. The vote is the government's boss, and it can't mess with it.

That better be sarcasm.
ok, AAmerica isnt perfect. only by comparison of any other nation on earth

ok, AAmerica isnt perfect. only by comparison of any other nation on earth

Ever been to Canada?

I have never, ever, understood why prisoners don't get the vote. It just seems like something so basic about democracy, but to find out they can't vote.... :confused: Surely if someone's been detained by their government, they'd be the people who'd be MOST interested in having a say in said government's running? I think we're a bit topsy turvy here. Governments aren't there to tell people what to do. If someone commits a crime, yes, governments are tasked with organizing their rehabilitation and removal from main stream society, but the government can't take away that person's right to tell the government what to do, i.e THE VOTE. The vote is the government's boss, and it can't mess with it.

A lot of people don't understand that criminals are still people, no matter what they do. If they are people and over the age of 18, they have the legal right to vote.
In Canada, the only adults not allowed to vote are judges, which is relatively fair.

I thought some states allow felons to vote after they've been released.I think people in the thread said that two did. Of course, those states would only apply to state laws. I'm pretty sure that federal law says that people who commit federal crimes can no longer vote.

Oh my god i think my eyes are going to bleed!

Lets just clear a couple of things up.

The European Court of Human rights is the final enforcer of the European Convention on Human rights and Fundamental freedoms, which was largely written by the UK after it got really sick of the wars and genocides errupting on the continent.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU.

It has jurisdiction over Turkey and Russis for example who are most definately not (yet?) members of the EU.

Second! What the ECHR said was that an arbitary ban on every single prisoner be they of the Yorkshire Ripper verity and never getting out or a pensioner locked up for 5 days for non payment of council tax is wrong.

It says simply that you cannot have this blanket ban because different crimes merit different punishments.

I really wonder if Scotland is the only place in the UK and English speaking nations that actually has schools any more.

Most prisoners will get out of prison someday. If the purpose (or at least one of the purposes) of prison is rehabilitation, then allowing and encouraging prisoners to exercise their civic duties is important. It is one step to teaching them responsibility: for their own actions, and to the community.


My thoughts exactly. The purpose of prison is not to make inmates feel marginalised from society, it's to prepare them for reintegration into society. Encouraging them to vote encourages them to feel they have a responsible role to play in society.

My thoughts exactly. The purpose of prison is not to make inmates feel marginalised from society, it's to prepare them for reintegration into society. Encouraging them to vote encourages them to feel they have a responsible role to play in society.

Snaps for rehabilitation! :)

And you wonder why we resent EU intrusion into our affairs, it is similar to the Medieval Pope but worse....

You do know, don't you, that the EHCR is not part of the EU and has nothing to do with the EU?