Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

Abstract

The principal argument in favour of enfranchisement is that it recognises that prisoners remain citizens while incarcerated and marks their inclusion in society. Without the vote they remain in a state of civil death which, as the European Court of Human Rights said in Hirst v United Kingdom, is inappropriate in a modern society committed to the principles of democracy and equality. Enfranchisement is also embedded in international human rights standards. Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights stipulates that all citizens have the right to vote. Participation in the democratic process would promote civic responsibility by encouraging prisoners to see themselves as citizens and reminding them that citizenship involves obligations or burdens as well as well as benefits. A study in the United States found that there were ‘consistent differences between voters and non-voters in rates of subsequent arrest, incarceration and self- reported criminal behaviour’ (Uggen and Manza, 2004). While it is not argued that voting per se generates law abiding behaviour, participation in political life can encourage the individual to look beyond self interest, towards the wider interest of the community. Prisoners are already receiving their ‘just deserts’ by imprisonment and a further loss of the right to vote is difficult to justify and disproportionate. In most cases this ‘punishment’ bears no relation to the gravity of the offence committed, or the type of crime, as relatively few prisoners are convicted of electoral offences. It is arbitrary as its execution will depend on the timing of the election. It is also unlikely that disenfranchisement constitutes a significant deterrent to offenders, or the wider public, compared to the prospect of incarceration. Any danger of prisoners voting in a bloc and affecting the outcome of elections in marginal seats can be averted by allowing them to vote by post in their original place of residence. There is no risk to the public and indeed it is easier to manage postal voting in prison than outside. Remand prisoners are already permitted to vote with no adverse effects. The Electoral Commission has considered proposed arrangements for prisoner voting and is confident that they are appropriate and will maintain the integrity of the process. Moreover, the overall trend worldwide is towards enfranchisement rather than disenfranchisement. Other states including South Africa and, closer to home, the Republic of Ireland, have given prisoners the vote with no ill effects. But if the UK rejects the Strasbourg Court’s ruling to amend the current ban, it undermines its reputation as a state committed to respect for human rights and the rule of law