Hirst v UK

Should prisoners have the right to vote?

In Hirst v UK (2005) the ECtHR ruled that a blanket ban on prisoners voting violated Article 3 in a case that David Cameron described as making him feel physically ill.

Those who commit serious crimes against society should lose (usually temporarily except in the case of lifers) the right to have a say in how that society is run. Rights come with responsibilities.
Losing the vote serves as another deterrent against law breaking.
Prisoners are concentrated in certain constituencies that have large prisons, yet are not normally permanent members of those communities so should not play a part in selecting MPs for such areas.
Public opinion is strongly against such a change.
It undermines parliamentary sovereignty.
The ECtHR ruling and its interpretation of the ECHR goes far beyond the original intent of its framers. It is a classic example of judicial overreach.

Voting is part of civic responsibility and removing it makes rehabilitation harder.
Voting is a fundamental right that cannot be removed.
There is no evidence that taking away the vote acts as an effective deterrent.
Removal of the vote makes a prisoner a non-person and alienates them further from society.
The ECtHR has ruled against a blanket ban, so the UK government must honour its commitment to abide by the court’s rulings whether or not it disagrees with them. The rule of law applies.

After years of delay, finally in 2017, then justice secretary David Lidington proposed granting the vote to prisoners on temporary licence, which would affect around 100 prisoners at any one time.