All Prisoners Should Lose The Right To Vote Case Study

Prisoners in the United Kingdom are currently denied the vote and in order to evaluate whether all prisoners should lose their voting rights we must: see whether is possible to remove a prisoner’s right to vote; if it is, then which criminals should retain the right to vote and what severity should be attached to this sentencing and finally; how useful removing the right to vote is , and whether this has an effect on whether is it removed or not. Before deciding whether all prisoners should lose their right to vote, we must first examine whether or not they are able to lose it, that is to say whether the right to vote is universal and undeniable. The Equality and Human Rights Commission for the United Kingdom says that, “The right to vote is absolute, which means that

The scale of the re-offending in the UK cannot simply be put down to the fact that prisoners cannot, every five years, vote on which party they want in power. A better way to improve rehabilitation rates would be to increase the training and job opportunities for ex-convicts, not to allow them to choose which politician dictates foreign policy. To claim that the loss of the right to vote is a major impact on their lives when their civil liberties, including: freedom of movement and communication are all restricted is a fallacy. If we therefore accept that rehabilitation for people who reoffend consistently must take a longer route, and one that will not be aided by voting, the next logical step would to enact the punitive side of the judicial system. This would mean that the loss of the vote (as I shown above not to be a breach of human rights for repeat and offenders of the most serious crimes) would be the logical conclusion. We are able to see how the removal of some prisoners’ voting rights is justified; if we can show that because of their continual re-offending, or the severity of the crime, that they do not understand the objective of the vote and