The prisoner ’s right to vote and civic responsibility: Reaffirming the social contract?
| Published date | 01 September 2009 |
| Date | 01 September 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550509337455 |
| Author | Susan Easton |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
224
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
The prisoner’s right to vote and civic
responsibility: Reaffirming the social contract?
Susan Easton, Brunel Law School
Abstract This article considers the issue of the prisoner’s right to vote in the light
of recent developments in law and policy. It critically reviews the purported justi-
fications for disenfranchisement and argues that re-enfranchisement should be
pursued on the grounds of both principle and policy.
Keywords citizenship, prisoner disenfranchisement, punishment, social contract,
voting rights
Introduction
The current law in the UK is that convicted prisoners (with few exceptions) are
denied the right to vote in national or local elections while they are incarcerated.
Remand prisoners, and sentenced prisoners imprisoned for contempt of court and
for non-payment of fines, are allowed to vote. The provisions disenfranchising
offenders are in s3 of the Representation of the People Act 1969, as amended in
1983 and 2000, which states that:
A convicted prisoner during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in
pursuance of his sentence . . . is legally incapable of voting in any parliamentary
or local election.
This denial of voting rights has led to considerable criticism. At a time when the
Government is under attack for the erosion of civil liberties and is encroaching on
rights across a wide range of issues, including extending pre-charge detention,
restoring the right to vote to convicted prisoners would be a positive step in affirm-
ing a commitment to fundamental rights. Although critics have focused on rights
violations in relation to control orders, extended detention and the treatment of
suspects, for example, in the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Counter-Terrorism Bill
2007–08, the rights lost during detention have received less attention but may still
be significant.
Copyright © 2009 NAPO Vol 56(3): 224–237
DOI: 10.1177/0264550509337455
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Articles
To continue reading
Request your trial