The issue of whether prison inmates should be allowed to vote or not has been brought to the limelight. According to Maltese legislation, inmates are denied such a right. The argument presently being debated is whether or not such a position is in line with the European Convention of Human Rights and, more so, whether it is in itself just.

Presently, in the UK, the House of Commons is disputing such an issue. In fact, the British Parliament is in the process of passing legislation akin to our own, denying prisoners the right to vote. The British Parliament, however, is only too aware of the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, in this respect, it seems to be treading on thin ice. British Parliamentarians have gone on record affirming their point of view that such an issue is purely a political one and that the matter should be decided solely by the sovereign UK Parliament.

This notwithstanding, it is interesting to note what the Strasbourg Court had to state on the subject. In Hirst v. UK and subsequent cases, the European Court of Human Rights opined that denying the vote is not an appropriate element of prisoners’ punishment and has criticised imposing such a sanction where it bears no relation to the original crime. The Court has even gone so far as to declare that such a practice is a disproportionate and arbitrary measure that is ever rarely linked to the original offence.

The European Court, however, has not as yet reached the point as to explicitly decide that such legal frameworks are incompatible with any particular provision of the European Convention of Human Rights. Indisputably, however, the writing is on the wall and the Strasbourg jurisprudence seems to be pointing at that direction. Such an eventuality however, would, in the UK scenario, at least, surely lead to a collision course between that country’s legislature and the Strasbourg Court and could even end up giving rise to an institutional crisis.

There are various arguments for and against denying inmates the right to vote. From a reformative justice point of view, granting such a right could be a positive move. Undeniably, possessing a vote would give prisoners a stake in the democratic process and promote a sense of civic responsibility. Furthermore, even though inmates are interned, they still have a vested interest in the general governance of the country.

On the other hand, there is a general feeling in most countries that granting prisoners such a right could distort the political process by affecting adversely the political agenda.

In Malta, we go so far as to exclude such a right not solely to the inmates themselves. Persons given alternative punishments, such as those handed suspended prison terms, are also, as a general rule, excluded from voting. In reality, statistics will show that there are presently hundreds of Maltese citizens who, on account of their abrasion with the law, have found themselves omitted from the electoral registers. These form a considerable percentage of the electorate. Perhaps here in Malta, we have gone too far in this respect.

We are presently debating a far reaching Bill on restorative justice, basically catering for the introduction of parole. Within the scope of this new legislation there is provided for the setting up of a number of entities that will entertain various requests from the inmates. One such board will be responsible for the granting of remission of prison terms while the Parole Board would decide on the granting or otherwise of parole itself. Perhaps it will not be a bad idea if one of these boards were to be authorised to decide on a one-to-one bases prisoners’ request to vote and this especially in the light of the aforementioned Strasbourg decisions. The million dollar question, however, still remains whether the European Court of Human Rights will indeed finally come to the conclusion that this general denial of the right to vote would run counter to some provision of the European Convention.

To my mind, the tendency seems to be there. However, no one can foretell what will ultimately happen. These are pleasures yet to come. The truth is that if this were to be the case, we would be in a fix and would be forced to legislate accordingly. It would therefore make more sense to take preventive action and prepare ourselves for such an eventuality than being told what to do from afar.

Dr Herrera is a member of Parliament and the Labour Party’s spokesman on justice.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.