subject: Give Us All Your Money....and The Vote! [print this page] A new electionA new election. A new government. New politics. Everything is fresh and harmonious in Westminster, but there may be trouble banging at the gates. The issue is the denial of your most democratic right, the right to vote. But not you or I. No, only those who are incarcerated in Her Majestys Prisons.
In October 2005, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that it was illegal to disenfranchise prisoners, by denying them their democratic right to vote. This decision was reaffirmed in a decision just last month, in the case of Frodl v Austria. And yet, the still exists an absolute statutory ban on prisoners obtaining the right to vote.
The court in Frodl v Austria, actually emphasised that the right to vote could only be taken away by the judge and that the judge would do so with reference to all the particular circumstances and if there is any link between the nature of the offence and issues relating to the election. One of the core principles of the European Court of Human Rights is that it offers protection to those parts of unpopular society, and yet that protection is being denied as a result of the British governments refusal to change the law.
The British government pride themselves on being one of the leaders in democracy and obeying the rule of the law, but such blatant disregard does not reflect well. Furthermore, with a new Lib Dem Conservative coalition in power, you can foresee that issues relating to Europe will be and forever remain a sticking point. William Hague, the new Foreign Secretary today remarked that Europe would not be the undoing of the coalition and both parties agree on what needs to be done. But Liberal Democrats, being historically very pro Europe and the Conservatives being anti Europe, cannot possibly equate to an agreement?
The effects of refusing to comply with the European Union as we are bound by law to do, are wide ranging. By not giving the right to vote to prisoners, you are essentially deterring them from taking an active interest in a society that at some stage, they will have to re-enter. This means that costs of rehabilitation and treatment for newly released prisoners could increase. The taxpayer would be responsible for these new costs. During a time when the belts have to be tightened and budgets are being slashed, surely obeying the ruling of the European Court has some economic benefits?
Also, during election campaigns, politicians have the luxury of not addressing fundamental issues in our legal and penal system, because they do not have to entice those votes. In addition to this, we would be breaking our legal obligations to comply with European Union legislation.
The Committee of Ministers of the European Union had warned Great Britain in the past that if it did not rapidly adopt measures, of even an interim nature, before the forthcoming election, they would suffer from the brunt of potentially thousands of claims in compensation. While there is an obvious difficult in placing a price on a democratic right, some commentators remark that it could be as much as 750 per prisoner if not more.
One firm in London has actually begun filing compensation claims for prisoners against the British government for illegal disenfranchisement. You can be sure that more claims will follow. But who will foot the bill I hear you ask. Well you, the taxpayer of course!
Check please!
by: Antonia Torr
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
