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 justifications for disenfranchisement and argues that re-enfranchisement should be pursued on the grounds of both principle and policy.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
The issue of prisoner disenfranchisement is examined in the light of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK. It is argued that the arguments in favour of denying prisoners the right to vote lack plausibility. Prisoner disenfranchisement cannot be coherently defended on the justifications of punishment or on the grounds of risk. On the contrary, matters of principle and policy considerations favour the re‐enfranchisement of convicted prisoners.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.