How can the european court decide a blanket ban on prison voting is illegal

[HeadingNorth]

'The Queen in Parliament' is the sovereign Lawmaker and if the British Parliament decides to wave two fingers to the ECHR judgement it may do so.

 

Not without reversing the laws that say ECHR judgments have legal validity in the UK.

[skinz]

Point taken about the hypocrisy, but you might be more interested in voting if you didn't agree with the laws that got you banged up in the first place.

 

I don't think prisoners of conscience are swelling the prison population.....yet.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Not without reversing the laws that say ECHR judgments have legal validity in the UK.

 

So what's the problem with that?

 

[The Queen in] parliament can pass (or revoke) whatever laws it chooses. (Within the limits of the Constitution.)

 

That's what being a 'Sovereign Lawmaker' means.

[HeadingNorth]

So what's the problem with that?

 

The problem is the other half of my post, which I was trying to add via an edit but I lost my connection.

 

 

The UK was a leading founder member in the ECHR, a British MP and judge was the architect of the Convention, and it owes a great deal to the fundamental principles of British law dating right back to Magna Carta. Deciding to abandon it would turn us into a world-wide laughing stock.

[llamatron]

I would guess that 90% of the prison population have neither voted or intend to vote, either through apathy or marginalization. What better time to introduce the ideals behind the vote to those that don't care for society or society seeming not to care for them. Being punitive seems ever so non productive.

 

I get the impression some are more concerned with the punishment than how the offender will perform on release.

 

its not punitive to me, I don't see why someone who thinks murder and thievery is acceptable should get to have a say in laws for the general population. We all know that voting is a big popularity competition and the winner gets ultimate power. I don't think amoral people should get any say in the winner. Absolutely nothing to do with punishment!

[llamatron]

What about political prisoners? A government could lock up a lot of opposition party voters before an election...

 

Anyway, all prisoners should have the vote, it's a human right, they're still humans. They have to deal with the government all day every day, the government controls prisoners lives while they're in prison.

 

If you take too many of prisoners rights & punish them too much then there's no chance of rehabilitation, they'll just continue to be criminals for the rest of their lives & keep re-offending. We need to teach them some self respect, that includes giving them rights & letting them feel like they have some control over their lives.

 

where is this list of human rights? Everything seems to be included! Is the right to vote really on it? And who gets to decide what is on it?

 

edit: on the daily politics show all the mps were saying it is not an official human right (i.e. in the bill) anyway so I don't know why you are claiming it is a human right?

[llamatron]

According to the bbc the court ruled a blanket ban is illegal but we can choose who we give the vote. That doesn't make sense. It either is a right of a group of prisoners or it isn't. If it is a "right" of certain prisoners then there must be rules on who has that right. Does anyone understand what I am trying to say because I am having difficulty wording it.

[horribleblob]

My understanding is that the European Court on Human Rights has given the UK government six months to come up with legislation to end the blanket ban on prisoners voting. I don't really see this as a problem because, to comply, I believe the UK government would be allowed to set the bar as high as they wish as long as it's not a "blanket ban".

 

Additionally, the ECHR is only asking the UK to comply with something that already exists in British common law, that being "Fettered Discretion" and which already applies to life sentences (ie, they are not fixed at actual life).

 

Fettered Discretion:

 

"An authority may not improperly fetter its undertaking, and it may not be stopped by its conduct from exercising its powers.

 

It may be required to consider the exercise of discretion in each individual case and not by reference to an inflexible policy rule".

 

Finally, I wonder how many of the people who object to prisoners voting, actually bother to vote themselves, and what do they fear would be the worst case scenario if lags were given the vote? Ex-cons who actually take an interest in politics, perhaps?

[PeteMorris]

According to the bbc the court ruled a blanket ban is illegal but we can choose who we give the vote. That doesn't make sense. It either is a right of a group of prisoners or it isn't. If it is a "right" of certain prisoners then there must be rules on who has that right. Does anyone understand what I am trying to say because I am having difficulty wording it.

 

I get your drift completely. It's just a nonsense. Perhaps it's been deliberately worded like that so that they can't be accused of leaning one way or the other, and it leaves more grey areas than if they hadn't bothered!

[PeteMorris]

Finally, I wonder how many of the people who object to prisoners voting, actually bother to vote themselves, and what do they fear would be the worst case scenario if lags were given the vote? Ex-cons who actually take an interest in politics, perhaps?

 

Well I think it's completely irrelevant if someone 'chooses' not to vote. That's their perogative. However, if you lose your liberty and are incarserated at her majesty's pleasure, then you lose that choice. Like all the other choices you lose in being within the prison system.

 

Makes sense to me!