Should rapists get the vote?

After a hard day in court...  

What has the power to unite MPs from all parties in a chorus of disapproval? Opposition to NHS reforms? Join the waiting list and think again. Support for Egyptian protesters? Wipe the tear gas from your eyes and have another go. A rethink on the public sector cuts? Of course not, they would have to give up their place on company boards. No, the only thing guaranteed to unite our politicians in opposition is when a European Court of Human Rights decision goes against British courts. Political correctness gone mad is the cry as Johnny Van der Foreigner imposes another crazy rule (to be said in the manner of a stereotypical Dutchman) before, inevitably, retiring to the nearest hottub with some young friends. 


As you may know, back in November, the Coalition agreed to remove the ban on voting from 70,000 inmates. This followed a legal case brought by convicted murderer, John Hirst, who fought a ten year battle to get the ban overturned whilst serving a 25 year sentence for manslaughter. In an interview with the BBC Mr Hirst stated that once he decided to 'reform' himself, he recognised that the rights of prisoners needed reforming also:


"I was reading a piece in a book where it said that there are no votes in prison… it inspired me to find out why and I started studying the suffragette movement, things like that and I thought there's no valid reason why prisoners shouldn't have the vote. So once the Human Rights Act came in I decided to go for it. I really believe in [this campaign] and someone has got to protect vulnerable people in society and prisoners are very vulnerable. They've got no vote so therefore no voice in parliament. All they can do is riot."

Mr Hirst

In 2005 the British government lost their appeal after Mr Hirst won a landmark decision in 2004. After failing to comply, in 2010 the ECHR gave the government a three month deadline to apply the ruling. Why the government dragged its feet on the issue was made immediately clear by 'Ian Huntley gets the vote' style headlines, which have provoked Jack Straw and David Davies to force a vote on the issue. In the current climate it is unlikely that the Commons will pass a proposal that could grant 1700 sex offenders and 6,000 violent criminals the vote. David Cameron has said that the prospect makes him feel "physically ill". So there is a silver lining. 


It's interesting that amongst all the rather distasteful policies being pushed through, the thing that really gets our MPs exercised is a civil liberties issue. To put the matter in some perspective, we should consider that only Romania, Bulgaria and Armenia, those 'lands of the free', also impose a 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting. Germany, France and Italy all allow most prisoners to vote. If you look beyond the headlines, the issue is not really about stopping prisoners voting, it is about imposing an arbitrary rule upon all prisoners and not addressing them as individuals. It's a pretty important principle. Not long ago our courts assumed that every Irishman was a terrorist. Now they assume that only a few of them may be. It has improved the quality of justice in our courts no end. Perspective is a powerful thing. 


Prisoner voting has been banned since the Forfeiture Act 1870. At that time there was no attempt to reform prisoners, they were simply removed from society. I'm sure many would approve of that logic but nowadays only a handful of prisoners will remain in jail for life. Juliet Lyon, from the Prison Reform Trust, has commented that, 'alienation from mainstream life and the reluctance to take responsibility are major springboards for crime, therefore, whatever can be done to encourage prisoners to become participating members of the wider society should be.' Judges have speculated that the solution will probably be for judges to make a ban on voting part of the sentence, or give all prisoners the vote when they become eligible for parole.  


David Davies has claimed we are in a 'constitutional crisis' and has said, "I yield to no one in my defence of human rights, but giving rapists the vote is not human rights." Well, technically, it is human rights but I know wheat he means. In terms of the 'constitutional crisis', is the EHRC staging a coup and riding roughshod over our ancient democratic institutions? Given that the two Governments have had six years to bring this matter to a vote and have refused until being given a deadline by the ECHR, it is a bit rich to talk in 'crisis' terms. 

Two world wars, one world cup and one
European Court of Human Rights decision

We are a long way off having a fat central European Monarch being imposed on us as a new Head of State (again). However, if the MPs vote against the proposal then it may come to that because the Government really don't have many options. Especially since the Tories' rabble rousing manifesto promise, to amend the Human Rights Act, seems to have slipped off the campaign table into the box marked, 'Gullible Tory Voters.' Yes, you lot have been lied to as well, so don't be so smug. Also, given the dire economic circumstances, Tories everywhere should support the change. After all, it has been estimated that not implementing the appropriate legislation will provoke £160 million of damages to prisoners. 


Can you imagine the Daily Mail headlines?