---

Voting by Prisoners

In the year 888, he was translating ““The Consolation of Philosophy”” from Latin and he asked a basic existential question: are we determined by fate or do we possess free will? He answered in favour of free will. When he translated the Latin word ““libertas””, he used the word ““freedom””—““free”” as in free from bondage, and ““dom””, for which we would now say ““deem””, meaning ““conscious”” of being free. Freedom was linked to free will and the basic idea that we take responsibility for our actions. That is how the word ““freedom”” entered our language in the first place, and it is what today's debate is about. If a person commits a serious enough crime to be sent to prison, they forfeit the right to vote, along with their liberty, for the limited period of their incarceration. We have come a long way since the year 888, but our tradition of liberty sustains the basic idea that with freedom comes responsibility. When the European convention on human rights was negotiated in 1949, that remained a guiding principle, so when the French proposed including a right to vote it was rejected because the draft contained the words ““universal suffrage””. The British delegate, Sir Oscar Dowson, a former Home Office legal adviser, stated:"““In no State is the right to vote enjoyed even by citizens without qualifications. The qualifications required differ from State to State…And it is our view that the variety of circumstances to be considered may justify the imposition of a variety of qualifications, as a condition of the exercise of suffrage””."