A Ban Behind Bars: A Critical Analysis of Britain’s Blanket Ban on Prisoner Voting di Josh Weston
Abstract- Away from the politicised debate concerning parliamentary sovereignty too often associated with the decision in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2), this article examines whether the blanket ban on prisoner voting is appropriate in Britain. It demonstrates how there is a right to vote protected in international law. In so doing, this article discredits the paradox between those who moot the importance of voting in society, whilst simultaneously claiming that the vote is only a privilege. This article challenges the historic notion of a civic death and asserts that the connection between the enjoyment of fundamental rights and virtue is weak. The extent to which prisoners retain their citizenship status and associated human rights is studied, ultimately concluding that they retain full citizenship whilst incarcerated. It is argued, therefore, that the current ban is inconsistent with a prisoner’s ongoing fundamental right to vote. Whilst the court will allow some limited interference if adequately justified, this article will demonstrate how the blanket ban fails to meet either of the aims maintained by the government in Hirst. The disproportionate application of the ban will also be highlighted. By concluding that the ban, far from punishing or enhancing civic responsibility, actually undermines the rehabilitation of those in custody, this article will assert that prisoner disenfranchisement is not appropriate in Britain. It is conclusively argued that it would be more appropriate to give all prisoners the vote.
Keywords – Prisoner, human rights, virtues, rehabilitation, responsibility, vote, incarceration.