NCJ Number
205596
Date Published
2004
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This paper reviews the arguments commonly used for and against giving prisoners the right to vote, both in Australia and internationally.
Abstract
Legislation pertinent to prisoners' right to vote is examined for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, as well as Australia. Both the United Kingdom and Canada do not authorize a blanket prohibition of voting by prisoners; however, disenfranchisement may attach to particular offenses or may be attached by a court in the sentencing of a particular offender. The United States allows States to prohibit voting by prisoners convicted of crimes as broadly defined. In Australia, any right to vote implied in the Constitution would not be unqualified. This is because the Constitution clearly provides for the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate the criteria for the "qualification of electors." Under Australian law, the removal of the right to vote as a means of punishment or deterrence, the rationale often given for disenfranchisement, is particularly paradoxical because of an Australian law that compels its citizens to vote. Persons who fail to vote on a number of occasions and refuse to pay the associated fines might, under a proposed legislative provision, be denied the right to vote while serving a period of default imprisonment for not voting. There is no clear connection between disenfranchisement and punishment for or deterrence from crime. In fact, one of the goals of rehabilitation is to promote responsible citizenship and involvement in the life of the community. The proposed Australian legislative provision to remove the right to vote from all prisoners serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment arguably conflicts with the constitutional requirement that citizens vote for those who represent them as a guarantee for the establishment and maintenance of the representative government mandated in the Australian Constitution. 78 notes