"Four in a cell? What's wrong with that? They committed a crime and they have to be punished!"
"They have radios and television in their cells? I thought prison was supposed to be a punishment. It is more like a five star hotel!"
In these more enlightened, modern times a prison sentence has always been about loss of liberty as a punishment. Personal discomfort and lack of amenities are now unintended practical consequences of incarceration (and a lack of adequate funding for H M Prison Service.)
Our elected representatives seem to be seething at a decision by the "Grand Chamber" of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg whereby our Representation of the People Act 1983 was found to breach the human right of prisoners to vote in a free election.
Mr John Hirst, a convicted killer, had brought the case but lost in our High Court. His successful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was challenged by the Government. The seventeen judge sitting of the Strasbourg Court then found in his favour by 12 to 5.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General is reported to have said that,
"…giving prisoners the vote would be ludicrous."
Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, reportedly insisted,
"I can make it absolutely clear that in relation to convicted prisoners, the result of this is not that every convicted prisoner is in the future going to get the right to vote."
and,
"We need to look and see whether there are categories that should be given the right to vote."
Looking at the matter objectively, on the premise that the actual punishment is one of loss of liberty, what is the logical basis of the denial to a prisoner of any other comfort or right that is enjoyed or exercised by those of us fortunate enough not to have been imprisoned for a breach of the 'criminal code'? Other than the unthinking knee-jerk reaction that prisoners have 'done wrong' and so have received their 'just desserts', there is not any reason. Mr Grieve and Lord Falconer are wrong. It is not acceptable to allow a diminution of a prisoner's other rights merely because he has committed a crime (or crimes) that warranted the loss of liberty.
There has not been any significant argument concerning this issue either in Parliament or elsewhere. The time has come for a full debate. It is long overdue. Successive Governments have demonised the perpetrators of crime and this has tended to harden public attitudes concerning the manner in which we treat our convicted prisoners. In the light of this, it is only natural that the general public dismiss unthinkingly claims by prisoners to some comfort or right.
"It doesn't matter how heinous the crime, everyone is entitled to have the basic right to vote"
says Mr Hirst.
Right On.