Yes: Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust and secretary-general of Penal Reform International

People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity. The case for allowing sentenced prisoners to vote is unequivocal. In a democracy, voting should be seen as a right and positive civic duty, not as a privilege. Disenfranchisement of prisoners is a relic that dates back to the Forfeiture Act 1870. It derives from the notion of civic death, a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights. Although disenfranchisement could be an additional, proportionate punishment for electoral fraud, it has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable.

The Prison Governors’ Association points out that barring prisoners from voting hampers rehabilitation. Paul Tidball, its president, has said that the ban is “out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work, which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release”.

Governors confirm that granting prisoners the right to vote would neither threaten public safety nor be difficult to implement, given arrangements for postal voting. The Electoral Commission has set out for the Ministry of Justice a straightforward way for prisoners to take part in the election.

The UK has lost its way when it comes to the rights and responsibilities of its citizens in prison. According to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, we are one of only a handful of European countries in which people in prison are still unable to vote. The Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev James Jones, who is Bishop to Prisons, said: “When you see the list of the few other countries that disenfranchise prisoners, it doesn’t fill you with pride.”

Six years ago the European Court of Human Rights ruled unlawful the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners’ voting. The Government appealed the decision in 2005 and lost. Since then the Government has employed shoddy delaying tactics to avoid implementing the ruling. The UK is normally regarded as having a good record in complying with European court judgments. But successive justice ministers have been preoccupied with political considerations and a fear of adverse headlines.

This week the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe required the UK authorities “to rapidly adopt measures, of even an interim nature, to ensure the execution of the court’s judgment before the forthcoming general election”. Lord Ramsbotham, the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, said: “What message does the Government think that the continued defiance of the rule of law sends to prisoners as well as the other countries in the Council of Europe?”

People say there are no votes in prisons. But Lord Hurd of Westwell, the former Home Secretary, believes that enfranchising prisoners would encourage MPs to take a proper interest in this neglected public service. The blanket ban is a far cry from what we would expect from a 21st-century justice system and should be overturned without further fuss or delay.

No: David Green, director of Civitas

Part of the punishment for a criminal sentenced to prison is to lose the right to vote. Being able to vote is not only something that a lawabiding citizen is entitled to, it is also a civic duty. In that sense it resembles jury service. Both are obligations we should fulfil to make our individual contribution to maintaining a fair and just society. Jury members swear an oath to give a true verdict. They are there to act in the common good. Voting in a general election is not quite so solemn an affair but it is a civic obligation of the same kind. Elections will produce good governments only if voters act out of public spirit and not merely in the hope of gaining advantage at the general expense.

Campaigners argue that giving prisoners the right to vote would make politicians more responsive to the concerns of criminals. But that is the last thing a law-abiding society needs. The interests of citizens who obey the law should be put first and criminals should change their habits and join the law-abiding majority. Convicted criminals can’t be jurors for the obvious reason that they might sympathise with fellow criminals and fail to give a true verdict. Convicted criminals can’t vote because they have shown that they lack the appropriate public spirit. When they have repaid their debt to society by serving time, then they are given a second chance.

Campaigners are claiming that prisoners are being “socially excluded”, but it would be more true to say that they have excluded themselves by breaking the law. It is up to the criminals to change their behaviour, not up to the rest of us to be more responsive to their needs without any demonstration of regret or reform on their part.

The European Court of Human Rights has intervened and decided that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has a right to vote, whether they are a convicted criminal or not. It may accept some restrictions but does not approve of the voting ban in Britain. When the convention was signed, none of the parties thought that the agreement would be interpreted in this way. What has changed is that the court is dominated by politically minded judges who, without taking the trouble to test their views in the court of public opinion at an election, presume to impose their personal wishes on everyone else by interpreting the meaning of the convention in an entirely novel way. In our parliamentary system, if there is a dispute about the meaning of the law, the courts try to establish Parliament’s intentions. The European Court of Human Rights does no such thing and increasingly seizes the chance to force the personal political preferences of judges down everyone else’s throat.

There should be declarations of human rights, so long as they list the things that should never happen (such as torture or genocide) or the things that should always happen (such as a fair trial). Whether prisoners should have the vote is a matter for the people to decide through Parliament. It is not a matter for the courts.