A number of issues have been missed from the debate about whether or not convicted prisoners (as opposed to those imprisoned for default, contempt or on remand) should have the right to vote.
Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights did not offer any compensation.
Secondly, the court looked at the third article of the first protocol to the European Convention, not the original convention.
Thirdly, the UK is not alone in not allowing convicted prisoners the vote.
It is entirely possible for the Council of Europe to clarify this particular issue. Hence a lot of the hot air relating to the issue arises from a misunderstanding as to the details of the issue.
The details are important.
Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights did not offer any compensation.
Secondly, the court looked at the third article of the first protocol to the European Convention, not the original convention.
Thirdly, the UK is not alone in not allowing convicted prisoners the vote.
It is entirely possible for the Council of Europe to clarify this particular issue. Hence a lot of the hot air relating to the issue arises from a misunderstanding as to the details of the issue.
The details are important.
Comments
John: have you noticed the way almost the entire British media tends to make a basic error when reporting the number of prisoners in the UK? They tend to quote the figure which is around 85,000 as the UK figure when in fact that is just the figure for England & Wales. There are about 7,500 prisoners in Scotland and 1,500 in Northern Ireland so the figure for the UK is about 94,000.
The BBC Parliament channel made this mistake recently. I sent them an email and they replied to apologise for making it.
I've seen it repeated in many broadsheet newspapers and also on TV news programmes.