Votes for Inmates? It’s Criminal!

“How many years must a man serve, before he can’t vote for a man”, as the Bob Dylan song nearly had it. The coalition government is currently backtracking on plans to allow prison inmates the right to vote. This might be because the coalition government is mainly comprised of Conservatives. I don’t know about you, but if I were a convict and I had the vote, it’d probably go towards a party whose stance on criminals was closer to the “softly, softly” approach. It would be prudent of me to say the least, as I’d have a 50 to 67% chance of re-offending within 3 years of being released. It should be borne in mind that statistic only includes those who are stupid enough to get caught again, so it’s almost certainly more.

The original plan was to change the law so that criminals serving a sentence of under four years had suffrage, but that has very recently been scaled down to those who have served under a year. The Prime Minister himself has said that the idea of giving any convicts the right to help decide the composition of Her Majesty’s Government makes him “ill”. This is understandable. The previous Labour government instituted the Human Rights Act, but never went as far as to pave the way for true universal suffrage. In fact they trampled all over the Act when it suited them, but that’s another story. So why would David Cameron be seen to pursue this overly Liberal legislation? It’s not Nick Clegg’s influence, as he’s almost certainly used all the leeway he has this decade to get the Conservatives to reluctantly pursue an Alternative Votes system. No, it’s the Europeans who are forcing Cameron’s hand.

The E.C.H.R, or Evil Court of Human Ruination have ruled that it is unlawful to deny the vote to convicts. This presents a problem for the Libservatives, because a Government bill on allowing those who have served less than four years to vote would almost certainly be defeated. However, it’s rather poor form to sign up to a European Human Rights Court and then stick your governmental fingers in your ears when they are trying to tell you that you should treat your citizens more nicely. Also, Britain’s legal make up is that if she votes against the proposal, she could still find herself having to enact it. Having policy redrafted by Europe when the ink is still wet could be cripplingly embarrassing for the government, but the signs are that M.P’s are not going to let this one go. So the Government, not wanting it but seemingly have to do it, are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Another reason why the Government might have to capitulate is because of what it may cost them if they do not. Criminals seem to be surprisingly well versed on law, sometimes. One imagines that solicitors swan around HMP Wandsworth whoring themselves out. “Yes, this might infringe on your Human Rights, but don’t worry, you don’t have to pay me. That’s for everyone outside of here to do. Oh, and the Prison Wardens.” “Yes, it would be a nice day out from prison, and yes, there might be a few fitties in the court.” “Yes, it is a complex irony that the government has to pay for legal representation for those trying to drain it of inestimable amounts of money.” The long and short of it is that if a court case of this manner succeeds after the government has decided against giving inmates the vote (and I can’t see it failing), the government may have to fork out millions of pounds for prisoners who were denied their human rights. The fact that a great many of them were never going to vote anyway and would be thousands of pounds richer is neither here nor there.