Dominic Grieve has called for a parliamentary debate over Government proposals to give tens of thousands of prisoners the right to vote.The blanket ban on inmates voting in elections, which dates back almost 140 years, was ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights five years ago. As a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government is officially bound by the ECHR's ruling. Many ex Prisoners are taking the Government to court regarding this.
The Daily Telegraph wrote:
It could lead to some of the most reviled people in Britain – including Soham child killer Ian Huntley, serial killer Rosemary West, paedophile Roy Whiting and Charles Bronson, who has spent more than two decades in solitary confinement – given a say in electing politicians.
If you commit a violent crime and go to prison you give up some of your rights as a citizen for that period and that's the way it should be. You take away the right to vote of your victim when you kill them, so why should you have the vote?
Dominic, the Shadow Justice Secretary, warned that many people would question whether this is a “sensible development"
“The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one. Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences.”
Update: I edited this post due to some mistakes - i do apologies.
Posts
7 comments:
I have to agree with you on this one. It's the same as Votes at 16, which i know you support! Why do you support lowering the voting age?
So you not only plagiarise but you also censor fair comment!
I have to say Oliver that I'm in favour of inmates getting the vote. Just because they imprisoned doesn't mean that they're not human beings with rights just like anyone else. The arguments for extending the franchise to 16 year olds nearly all apply to inmates.
It would appear that I can't type properly after midnight..
Er... I have to agree with my namesake :) simply because I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't have a vote. How does their incarceration make them unfit to vote? How can anyone capable of making an independent choice be unfit to vote?
This is a Government action, not an ECHR one. The ECHR is largely irrelevant in this case, because there's no obligation on the Government to change legislation: if they're trying to do so, that's because they want to, not because the ECHR wants them to. ECHR rulings are supposed to take precedence over other case law, but because legislation - when not left (intentionally) vague - always takes precedence over case law, the ECHR's ruling in this case has no effect unless legislation is changed. The Government isn't "officially bound" to do anything. Those excons you're talking about can't win.
And just in case you're interested, Grieve's mine :D My constituency overlaps his... (he's one of 4... all Tories) I wrote to him earlier this month and his PS says he's "making inquiries" :S I wrote to Gillan, Lidington and Goodman too... Lidington said it'd take him a long time to reply, Goodman has arranged to meet me, and Gillan is as-of-yet tight-lipped. You'll be glad to know I mentioned V@16 :)
Adam (Wokingham) – "The arguments for extending the franchise to 16 year olds nearly all apply to inmates."
The Sixteen year olds who I believe should have the right to Vote – Have not be convicted of abusing someone’s Human Rights. It’s unbelievable that you are comparing two completely different issues!
Adam (Wycombe) - "there's no obligation on the Government to change legislation."
The government could be issued a fine if it goes against the ruling along with other necessary action taken by EU politicians.
No it can't. The only time the ECHR (or ECtHR, I guess I should say, just to avoid confusion with the Convention itself) has any power whatsoever over British legal proceedings is when the legality of an action is not clearly defined in British legislation (id est it's been left vague so as to allow jurisprudence to fill in) and when the prosecution has reasonably exhausted domestic legal processes, at which point it can serve as the highest appeal court and set supreme jurisprudence. That ruling is binding under British common law unless Parliament passes an Act which contradicts it. The ECtHR is still hardly powerless: it can effectively set the law, providing Parliament doesn't actively rule against it or didn't already have its own rules in place. But even so, the ECtHR has no sovereign powers: it can't force a Government's hand, or fine it, or apply sanctions or anything else. Refusing to i might make European relations a bit tense, and the CoE could in theory threaten a country with expulsion, but that's it.
I know: I spent last summer picking this stuff apart :) For a job, not just randomly for fun.
Post a Comment