Prison vote decision must be clear-cut

WHETHER prisoners should get the vote or not is a long-running stand-off between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights. On four occasions, the court has ruled against the UK policy of denying prisoners a vote at elections, the most recent judgment coming in February this year.

So far, any attempt to change existing practice has failed despite these European rulings. Now Scottish Labour Party leadership candidate Ken Macintosh has come up with a bid to introduce a middle-ground solution in Scotland, by suggesting that some convicted prisoners should be allowed a vote, while more serious offenders would continue to be denied the franchise.

According to Mr Macintosh, the degree of severity of offence should be taken into account. Those sentenced for non-violent crimes or some of those who have demonstrated “good behaviour” and shown “shame” for their crimes should be given the vote, he suggests.

This proposal is simply not practical. The factors which determine who goes to prison, and what leniency he or she can shown when serving sentence, are many and varied. Adding the right to vote to the mix would require the creation of a ruling body to assess each claim on a case-by-case basis.

Allowing or denying the vote will not assist rehabilitation and reduce re-offending, and nor will it solve the Scottish Labour Party’s problems as it looks ahead to Holyrood elections next year. This matter should remain black and white: either prisoners get the vote, or they do not. Attempting a halfway house achieves nothing.