The more one reads about whether prisoners should have the right to vote, the more it reveals about attitudes within society towards those who find themselves behind bars. Of course, there are those who are using the situation to make a statement about the relationship between the British government and the European Court of Human Rights. However, when you read reports, for example, that the Prime Minister was “absolutely horrified” and ‘the thought of it made him physically ill,’ or others who ‘saw absolutely no reason why prisoners should be given the vote,’ it speaks volumes!
We don’t seem to realise that, for the most part, crimes are committed because the perpetrator either doesn’t have respect for another person or for their property. However, the root of respect for another has to be to have respect for oneself. Self-respect must come first. If I, too, don’t show respect to a prisoner, how can that person come to know what respect is for themselves? While I’m sure this is not a popular attitude, to deny it is to suggest that Ghandi also had it wrong when he said, “be the change you wish to see.”
If, as a society, we are to show that we have moved on from the 19th and 20th centuries, then in the context of prisoners being able to vote, let’s have the conversation from the perspective of a rehabilitation platform and not a punishment platform. (To suggest that prisoners are apolitical and are unlikely to use their vote anyway is a smoke-screen. Exactly the same applies to a significant section of society who are not in prison.)
Yes, it is quite natural that we may be ‘absolutely horrified’ by the actions that someone carried out but we should be clear that it is the actions that we are denigrating and not the person. This is what stands at the very heart of rehabilitation, the separation of the person from the action. When I am unable to do that, then my attitude towards the crime becomes my attitude towards the person – perhaps to all those who share the same common factor, that of imprisonment.
However, in the last two decades, attitudes have shifted radically. Today, imprisonment is much more synonymous with rehabilitation; schemes, treatment, and training are offered (or in some cases imposed) which are designed to encourage behavioural change, thinking patterns, awareness and attitudes. Prisons are increasingly a ‘holding station’ – albeit relatively long term in many cases - in which numerous agencies have the opportunity to work with offenders to address their offending behaviours or the circumstances that provoked such behaviours. Prisons, therefore, present an opportunity to help integrate people back into society in a manner that is aligned to societal values and norms.
While the aims of imprisonment may be broadly the same today as they were in 1870 - the year sentenced prisoners were originally denied the right to take part in ballots under the Forfeiture Act - what is certainly different is the intention behind the act of incarceration. In the late 18th and 19th century – the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act, 1983 – imprisonment was deemed to be punishment. It was a time when the attitude of ‘hang them and flog them’ was almost the only attitude expressed: a time when it was considered to be appropriate to ‘give prisoners a hard time’ physically, mentally and emotionally. The attitude was that they had transgressed the laws of society and deserved to be treated thus.
