The aim of this essay is to work out and comment upon the treatment of prisoner voting rights by different instruments and the respective authorities on the basis of the parliamentary briefing paper dated from 11 February 2015 with particular consideration of the implementation of Llewellyn’s law jobs. First, this essay will present Llewellyn’s law job theory, then it will outline general provisions relating to voting rights. In the next section, the ECtHR’s and the UK government’s point of view on this debate will be critically examined, followed by an evaluation referring to the operation of the law jobs, especially emphasizing tensions regarding the resolution of trouble cases and the guiding of people’s conduct.
Should prisoners in the United Kingdom be granted the right to vote? Several cases – Hirst v The United Kingdom (No 2) probably being the most popular example, where the convicted sought to challenge the current ban on prisoners’ voting – raised this issue in the recent years. A highly controversial debate was thereby initiated, especially against the backdrop of frequently arising tensions between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as to the nature and extent of how some substantive rights operate. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the law of the UK, the national courts are generally obliged to interpret national law in a manner compatible with the ECHR and to consider the decisions of the ECtHR .
Table of Contents
I.
II.
1. Llewellyn’s law job theory
2. General provisions relating to voting rights
a. UK law
b. European law
3. Treatment of prisoner voting rights by several authorities
a. ECtHR
b. UK government
4. Evaluation
III.
IV. Reference list
1. Cases
2. Legislation
3. Publications by Parliament
4. Articles
5. Books
6. Websites
Objectives and Research Themes
This essay explores the ongoing conflict regarding prisoner voting rights in the United Kingdom, specifically examining the friction between national legislation and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) through the theoretical lens of Karl Llewellyn’s "law jobs."
- The theoretical application of Llewellyn’s law jobs to modern legal disputes.
- The clash between UK national law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The critical analysis of arguments regarding the disenfranchisement of prisoners.
- The potential for legislative reform balancing moral authority and political inclusion.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Llewellyn’s law job theory
Llewellyn’s law job theory is important in order to understand what law does. Essential to its nature is the idea that every human group has to fulfil particular needs or assure that certain jobs are done in order to survive and to achieve its aims. Accordingly, society needs to determine how trouble cases are handled and therefore the allocation of authority is a vital aspect; the job of preventive (re-)channelling of conduct serves to regulate the group life to avoid trouble or to adjust to changes and the so-called ‘net drive’ seeks to provide direction and incentive within the group. The fifth job of ‘juristic method’ is added to emphasize that certain skills and practices need to be developed.
Summary of Chapters
1. Llewellyn’s law job theory: This section introduces the theoretical framework of Karl Llewellyn, explaining how legal systems function to manage group needs and resolve disputes.
2. General provisions relating to voting rights: This chapter contrasts the strict blanket ban on prisoner voting in UK law with the more liberal, rights-based approach found in European law.
3. Treatment of prisoner voting rights by several authorities: This section analyzes how the ECtHR and the UK government have positioned themselves in the debate, highlighting the tensions between supranational rulings and national parliamentary sovereignty.
4. Evaluation: This chapter provides a critical assessment of the moral and political arguments surrounding prisoner enfranchisement and suggests possible legislative paths forward.
Keywords
Prisoner voting rights, UK law, European Court of Human Rights, ECtHR, Llewellyn’s law jobs, Human Rights Act 1998, Hirst v UK, parliamentary sovereignty, electoral disqualification, rehabilitation, social responsibility, criminal justice, legal reform, jurisprudence, enfranchisement.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper examines the legal and political controversy surrounding the denial of voting rights to incarcerated individuals in the United Kingdom.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The study covers the conflict between UK domestic law and European human rights standards, the role of authority in resolving legal disputes, and the social philosophy of prisoner rehabilitation.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to analyze the treatment of prisoner voting rights using Llewellyn's "law jobs" theory to understand how authority is allocated and disputes are managed.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a combination of legal analysis, critical evaluation of parliamentary briefing papers, and the application of legal realism theory (Llewellyn's law jobs).
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body details Llewellyn’s theory, outlines the current UK and European legal positions, examines the specific stances of the ECtHR and the UK government, and evaluates the potential for reform.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
Key terms include prisoner voting rights, ECtHR, Llewellyn’s law jobs, parliamentary sovereignty, and legal rehabilitation.
How does the "law jobs" theory explain the conflict between the UK and the ECtHR?
It highlights the friction in the "allocation of authority," where the ECtHR sets broad rules that the UK government is hesitant to fully implement, leading to uncertainty and delays in resolving the "trouble case."
What is the author's stance on the current blanket ban?
The author suggests that a blanket ban is problematic and proposes that electoral disqualification should be made dependent on the duration of the sentence or the severity of the crime committed.
- Arbeit zitieren
- M. T. (Autor:in), 2016, Llewellyn's law job theory and the challenge of the current ban on prisoners' voting. Should prisoners in the United Kingdom be granted the right to vote?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/337103
