Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Question: That Q should prisoners in the united kingdom be given a right to vote? Answer: Research Questions and Hypothesis Prisoners face civil death as they are not allowed to vote in UK. There are growing concerns due to social pressure if prisoners should be given the right to vote. Hence, the main research question of this research is: Should prisoners in UK be allowed to vote? The primary research question can be given a direction through secondary questions as follows: What are the challenging experiences that shape the behaviour of criminals? Considering the political and social pressure, what are the considerations that will be taken by legal system to adopt a new approach? There are various hypothesis assumed for the research: H1= Vast majority of the UK prison population comes from disadvantaged social and economic background. H2= Prisoner Disenfranchisement Policy is a threat to democracy. Background to the Study This paper is an investigation if the prisoners should get voting rights within UK. Every single prisoner in UK is disenfranchised from voting[1]. Rationale for your Research Subject The reason for choosing this topic of research is to explore the factors in favour and against prisoners' voting rights in UK. This project aims to explore the feelings of public towards the research issue. Indicative Literature Review British Democratic Government The United Kingdom has a democratic government where they act in the interests of people. According to the political system, every adult is entitled to universal suffrage- the right to vote[2]. Human Rights Every human being has a right to vote in elections as a civil liberty and without discrimination. Right to vote is a right and not a privilege. Right to vote guarantees the respect of opinion in a democratic society[3]. Research Methodology Research Design For covering the areas of research design, data analysis and limitations, quantitative data methods are used. An online questionnaire was administered to 90 participants involved in the project. The overall results are taken into account to avoid sampling errors. The scale for questions is based on a Likert Scale. Also, a few cases with violation of Article 3 (right to free elections) of Protocol No. 1 are considered such case for Hirst (No. 2) v. the United Kingdom. Another country with prisoner disenfranchisement is Austria[4]. Data Collection The data was collected through an online survey. A template was prepared in a manner that gave people an opportunity to continue or ignore the internet questionnaire page. Data Analysis For the first research question, 33.3% of the participants suggested that the prisoners should be allowed to vote regardless of the crime committed by them. 55.5% of the participants suggested that criminals must be by crime committed by them. 11.1% of the participants suggested that no criminal should be allowed to vote. The majority of the people stated that the sexual offenders must not be given a right to vote. For the second research question, 44.4% of the participants considered that voting must be allowed as a basic human right. 5.5% people had an undecided opinion regarding the relationship between human rights and prisoner voting rights. While the remainder strongly agreed with prisoner disenfranchisement. Intended Outcomes This research is a method to involve the public to ink their opinions. This project takes a step forward in understanding the opinion of public regarding prisoner disenfranchisement. The Timetable for the Proposed Project References Birch A,The British System Of Government(Routledge 2013) European Court of Human Rights, "Prisoners Right To Vote" (2015) https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Prisoners_vote_ENG.pdf accessed 15 February 2016 Lansbergen A, "Prisoner Disenfranchisement In The United Kingdom And The Scope Of EU Law: United Kingdom Supreme Court" (2014) 10 European Constitutional Law Review McNulty D, Watson N and Philo G, "Human Rights And Prisoners' Rights: The British Press And The Shaping Of Public Debate" (2014) 53 The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice