Paste your essay in here..In this article, Behan and O’Donnell specifically analysed the introduction of the legislation to allow prisoners to vote by Irish Government in 2006. It also involved the reference of international developments regarding prisoners voting specifically in Israel, South Africa, Canada, United Kingdom and United States of America . By having the reference of international developments, this article examined the background and significance of the change in law of Republic of Ireland. It is very clear that both authors highly support the enfranchisement of prisoners in Ireland. Among the reasons why both authors support the idea of enfranchisement are from the perspectives of impact of imprisonment, society’s conflicted attitude towards prisoners, the variety of stimuli for penal reform and the nature of citizenship. Throughout the article, we can see the arguments show their support towards enfranchisement of prisoners as they believe voting is actually a responsibility rather than a privilege. By saying that, it is actually one of the ways to counter the argument that said disenfranchisement is a way to show that prisoners that have done something in the past should have not given the privileges or rights that the same responsible citizen should get.
Different from the approach adopted by Manfredi in Judicial Review and Criminal Disenfranchisement in the United States and Canada. Manfredi supports disenfranchisement of prisoners, as he believes that citizenship entails responsibilities and duties as well as rights and privileges. He believes that citizens, prisoners should not be allowed to vote as it is a privilege that should only be given to the citizen that fulfill their responsibility to the country. Contradict to Manfredi, Behan and O’Donnell believes that voting is not something to be gained as a privilege but it is something that already exists and should be fulfilled by the citizens.
It is believed that the difference in interpretation comes from different approaches adopted by the authors. Behan and O’Donnell, in the article started by showing references to other international development about prisoner voting. This may cause their perspective about disenfranchisement to be broader than Manfredi. As example, in the article, Behan and O’Donnell refer to the situation in the United States to show how disenfranchisement can actually bring lots of disturbance and become a problem to democracy. While in Manfredi’s, he tends to focus more on the United States and Canada and the issue discussed in the article is more focused and only about few cases and issues.
It is also worth to note that by referring to South Africa, Behan and O’Donnell managed to show the other international development that supports their argument. When South Africa’s Constitutional Court rejected the Government’s argument for preventing prisoner from voting, one of the judgements was ‘everybody counts’. What makes it is interesting is many of those who became lawmakers in 1990s were ex-prisoners or part of a movement, the African National Congree (ANC) that was led by Nelson Mandela. By referring to a country that experienced revolution and led by many ex-prisoners such as Nelson Mandela itself, it is actually significantly showing that democracy is not going to be ruined by the ex-prisoners that voting but their votes actually means that democracy is growing and shows how the government starting to treat everyone equally by showing that everybody counts and everybody belongs to the same democratic country. This also supported by the fact that even prisoners held in British and American jails in Iraq were allowed to maintain their voting rights, and this is justified by the occupying forces as a step to aid the democratic process.
By referring to the United States, Behan and O’Donnell actually show two different effects of prisoners voting on democracy in terms of voting bloc. At first, they show how the disenfranchisement of prisoners disadvantages the black community that affected 1.4 million black men or 13 per cent of black male population. By showing this, they argue that disenfranchisement caused George W. Bush to win the 2000 election and it is not an exaggeration to say that disenfranchisement of ex-felons changed American history. Later in the article, the fear of voting bloc during the introduction of the 2006 Electoral (Amendment) Act is mentioned. By having two different situations about voting bloc. It will make the readers to question whether or not a voting bloc will cause the same problem in Ireland. If it causes the same problem, what makes it better to have a voting bloc that caused by enfranchisement than when it is caused by the disenfranchisement of prisoner? Although this question is not answered in the article, Behan and O’Donnell clearly mentions the low possibility for a voting bloc to exist as a result of enfranchisement in Ireland. It is stated that one of the reasons is the small number of prisoners will make it is unlikely the impact would be like in the United States where Republican candidates in every presidential and senatorial race from 1972 to 2000 gained significant advantage from the disenfranchisement. This argument also backed up by the Proportional Representation, single Transferable Vote (PR-STV) that allows small number of votes to exercise a decisive influence. Given the existence of this policy and current situation in the republic, the fear of a voting bloc as an effect of enfranchisement should not exist. However, although it is explained that a voting bloc is unlikely to happen in Ireland, how about other countries that have high number of prisoners? Will enfranchisement be a good excuse for voting bloc? One might argue given that vote is a privilege, right, or even a responsibility, the question of voting bloc should not be mentioned as vote means one’s choice and decision. This means that if a particular decision or result comes out from an election that participated by everyone that deserve to choose their representative including the prisoners, it is not something extraordinary or morally wrong. Compared to enfranchisement, disenfranchisement however shows that the restriction of certain people from voting causes some people to not able to contribute their voice and worse, not able to choose their own representative.
As Ireland is a member of European Union (EU), Article 3 Protocol 1 in the European Convention on Human Right (ECHR), “Right to free elections’, supports the action of enfranchisement. It seems that an enfranchisement will not be a problem to Ireland and almost unchallengeable even by the ECHR. However, it is shown that the Article 3 Protocol 1 is actually managed to be challenged by the UK government in Hirst v UK [No 2]. Even it is justified by the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) that the blanket ban on prisoner voting is a violation of Article 3, Protocol 1 of ECHR, the British Government did not managed to introduce legislation to let prisoners to vote as the authority fell to British Parliament which on that time rejected the attempt on an enfranchisement. British government argued that a blanket ban was justified as the government commented that if enfranchisement is to be introduced, the one that committed serious offences will still be banned from voting as they believe that a ban is a punishment and although there should be a sense of appreciation of the prisoners’ citizenship, there should be a line to be drawn somewhere. Above all, the government also argued that Article 3, protocol 1 was not absolute and a wide margin of appreciation was to be allowed to contracting states in determining the condition under which the right to vote was exercised. This situation actually showed the challenges that can be face by Ireland in the future as there might be future leaders and personnel that will try to implement disenfranchisement in the republic. The case of the British government shows that it is possible to implement disenfranchisement even with the ECtHR’s intervention in the process.
However, lots of other scholars have the same stand as Behan and O’Donnell, to support the enfranchisement or at the very least, a partial ban. Lippke In The Disenfranchisement of Felon argued that disenfranchisement and especially blanket ban is not well justified as he cannot justify the ban of the right to vote and he believes that none of the arguments in support can be applied to all of the circumstances of offenders. He believes that states can only limit a prisoner’s rights for a certain period of time and that they can’t be removed all together. However, there is controversy over how long and what rights can be justifiably removed. He also argued that disenfranchisement or a ban of prisoners voting is not consistent as its aim is does not show the same purpose as traditional penal crime such as crime reduction, retribution and rehabilitation. Manfredi supports this in his article as he argued that disenfranchisement can only be justified if it can be shown and proven that there is connection between a ban on prisoners voting to objectives of deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation. As every other traditional punishment has similarities in the aims, disenfranchisement seems to only have one purpose; to punish. Without any other advantage or clear aim from the punishment, it is argued that disenfranchisement does not offer anything to the society rather than a social exclusion of the ex-felon from the rest of the community and the political development of a country.
Even though Manfredi shows the tendency to support a blanket ban, it is important to note that his arguments demand very strict criteria to be fulfilled before a ban is justified. What makes it interesting is as mentioned earlier in this analysis, Manfredi and Behan and O’Donnell have different view on how prisoners’ vote should be treated. Manfredi’s tendency to support a blanket ban in the UK may be caused by his action to treat a vote as a right and privilege that can only be gained by a responsible citizen while Behan and O’Donnell believe that a vote is actually a responsibility for everyone to fulfill. Despite having different ways on how a vote should be treated, Manfredi, Behan and O’Donnell are actually arguing by using almost similar arguments to justify their own stands.
Lippke on the other hand mentioned that disenfranchisement as a punishment does not have any ability to encourage serious offenders to think about their wrongdoing and letting them to vote will actually encourage them to be active and participate in political activity as an active democratic citizen. It is also worth to note that one of the Strasbourg court arguments is British government in implementing a blanket ban should actually show a legitimate aim why this right need to be taken from the citizens and how can this action actually benefits the society. Saying that, even if someone is to justify an action of blanket ban, they should show and justify how this action or policy can benefit the society by taking away the right to vote from a group of citizen.
In this article both authors argue that encouraging personal transformation is the best way in solving the problem of lack of participation in the society among the ex-prisoners. Although there is no specific way that is suggested by the authors, we can conclude that Behan and O’Donnell want to make prison as a place to rehabilitate instead of punishing the prisoners. However, it is not easy to accomplish what the authors suggest as earlier in the article it is stated that ‘the rhetoric of imprisonment and the reality of the cage are often in stark contrast’ and ‘it is hard to train for freedom in a cage’. This statement clearly shows how the solution suggested by the author is actually impossible in a way but worth a try. Behan and O’Donnell also pointed out the fact that the authorities in trying to encourage the inmates to be responsible and rehabilitated, are always in dilemma to find a way to also discourage the inmates from becoming radical and rebellious. As it is important to have the criminals in the prison, it is also important to make sure they get out of the place in a better condition. The aim of prison to make prisoners lead a better life outside of the prison and also to help them to reintegrate into the society seems to be a hard work as the prison itself is used to isolate the prisoners from the society. In this discussion’s context, isolation is not a helping process. Prisoner always reminded and encouraged to be active in the society but rarely encouraged by the government to be aware and care about political activity. Disenfranchisement in a way shows the early stage of society’s disapproval of the criminals and may be one of the many challenges that need to be faced by the prisoners upon their release. In this case, the method suggested by the authors is full of potential but it will take a lot of time and efforts for Ireland or any other countries to work on the reconstruction of prisons to achieve and accomplish the aims as stated in the article.
In the final analysis, it is clear that Behan and O’Donnell support the idea of enfranchisement in Ireland. The article argues about the important of voting to citizens of a country and how it can affect the process of rehabilitation for the ex-felon. Behan and O’Donnell suggested for a restructure of the prisons to accommodate the need of a newly implemented enfranchisement and it shows that even it is a very good suggestion to start the process of rehabilitation from inside of the prison, it will take a lot of time and effort that may cost lots of money and time from the government. Even the enfranchisement in the republic is still newly implemented, Behan and O’Donnell are not alone in justifying the action as there are few other academician and authors that show support for enfranchisement and most of them are in the same position as Behan and O’Donnell. Manfredi, although shown to have the tendency to support a blanket or partial ban, still show some justifications for an enfranchisement and a strict criteria for a blanket ban to be implied. Lippke in contrast shows support for an enfranchisement and he is on the same side as the authors. The case of Hirst unfortunatel shows how the enfranchisement in the republic is still open to challenges although the action is highly supported by the ECHR and ECtHR. We can conclude that even Behan and O’Donnell’s justifications are highly supported by other authors and even the ECHR itself, they have to realise that the current situation in the ECHR and their own neighbour, the UK is actually something to be taken into account in order to make sure that the enfranchisement in the republic can be implemented and implied for as long as it can be.
Bibliographies
Case
Hirst v The United Kingdom
Journal Article
Behan C and O'Donnell I, 'Prisoners, Politics And The Polls: Enfranchisement And The Burden Of Responsibility' (2007) 48 British Journal of Criminology
Lippke R, 'The Disenfranchisement Of Felons' (2001) 20 Law and Philosophy
Manfredi C, 'Judicial Review And Criminal Disenfranchisement In The United States And Canada' (1998) 60 The Review of Politics
Website
'Prison Reform Trust Responses To Government Consultations' (Prisonreformtrust.org.uk, 2017) <http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/Consultationresponses> accessed 19 December 2016