IN Scotland and across the UK, social justice campaigners, human and civil rights groups, religious organisations, many senior past and present criminal justice professionals, academic experts and charities working with offenders and ex-offenders are coming together to make the case for an end to the current blanket ban on voting by all convicted prisoners.
We make powerful arguments about the moral case for an alternative approach. We have set out substantial concerns about the practical impact and arbitrary effects of excluding all convicted prisoners without exception from the democratic process, and in particular from next year's referendum. The Government responds simply: "The Scottish Government does not agree that convicted prisoners should be able to vote while they are in prison."
Throughout the passage of the bill, the Deputy First Minister has given repeated reassurances that "Parliament will decide" on this issue. The speed with which this issue has come up in the Scottish Parliament means the political parties in Scotland have not had the chance for a full internal debate on prisoner voting and the issue was not, understandably, included in any of the 2011 party manifestos. There are significant challenges to equity and social justice raised by applying a blanket ban on voting by all convicted prisoners at the referendum on Scottish independence.
Tam Baillie, Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People; Tom Halpin, Chief Executive, SACRO;
Tony Kelly, solicitor; Robin McAlpine, Director, Jimmy Reid Foundation; Isabel McCue, chief executive, Theatre Nemo; Andrew McLellan, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland 2002-2009; Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology and Social Work, University of Glasgow;
Jim Murdoch, Professor of Public Law, University of Glasgow; Alec Spencer, Former Director of Rehabilitation and Care, Scottish Prison Service; Ruth Stark, Manager, Scottish Association of Social Work; Pete White, Co-ordinator, Positive Prison? Positive Futures; John Scott QC, Chairman, Howard League for Penal Reform, Scotland, Lismore Crescent, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article