Suchergebnisse

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]

Most international agreements on the rights of suffrage and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights hold that universal and equal suffrage is a key component of a democratic society. Apart from that, different nations have distinct electoral regulations governing the ability of prisoners to vote. Most of the states have adopted laws, forbidding the right to vote and be elected while in prison. Prisoner disenfranchisement is a topic of academic debate. Many scholars discuss whether voting should be considered as a right, or as a privilege granted by the state. Some critics argue that prisoner disenfranchisement is a form of double jeopardy or the breach of the non bis in idem rule. More specifically, these laws continually punish individuals for crimes that they have already served time for. Questions arise over whether the state has a legitimate interest in denying the right to vote and be elected to those who have manifested a fundamental antipathy to the laws of the state. Convicted felons also raise questions about morality and their ability to vote responsibly. The main purpose of this article is to find out whether the political rights can be restricted on the ground of the prison sentence. The findings partially support hypothesis that incarceration can be the reason for curtailing the political rights. The principle of universal suffrage is not absolute. International and regional documents on the rights of suffrage gives a room for implied limitations and states' legislatures must be allowed a margin of appreciation in this sphere. The margin in this area is wide, however the decision to curtail the rights of any groups or categories of the general population, such as convicted prisoners, must be 1) proportional; 2) in the pursuit of a legitimate aim; 3) reasonable. Most of the foreign tribunals hold that prison disenfranchisement laws are constitutional and justified. [.]