The recent debate over prisoners rights to vote has been a controversial issue in the media, one with political, moral and legal complications. In theory, western liberal democracies, such as the United Kingdom (UK) atomic number 18 said to protect a range of rights: Freedom of conscience; license of expression; freedom of association; freedom of withstand; freedom of movement; freedom from arbitrary; the right to a fair trial; freedom from torture; and the right to avouch property. In practice, however, such rights are limited by a range of statutes that have been enacted by Parliament for example the lamentable Justice twist 1984 could be said to limit freedom of movement and the freedom of protest. This is also the case for denying prisoners the vote on a lower floor Section 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983. The UK remains one of the only countries which have maintained its traditional legal position on this issue, with other European countries such as part of Scandinavia wholly allowing the vote to its prisoners.
France and Germany too, allow the vote to prisoners. However, this is not per se, and is ground on the individuals offence. In 2005 the UK was challenged by the case of Hirst which highlighted the contradiction of UK law and EU courts. In October 2000 The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 came into force and incorporated most of the articles of The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950 into UK law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) therefore urged the UK to coincide with the Council of Europes ECHR and thus rule in choose of Hirst, allowing him the vote. As the HRA is not based on EU law, it is not superior to parliamentary statute as EU laws are under the...If you want to get a full essay, bon ton it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment