The disenfranchisement of prisoners under the principle of proportionality: a comparative study of the US and the UK

Abstract

The right to participate in the governing of state is one of the principle fundamental human rights, be it directly or indirectly through an elected official. This right has been addressed numerous times in different international laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has been transcribed in most democratic states legal frameworks. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions to this rule under which a state can restrict the right to vote for certain individuals. The European Court of Human Rights has long referred to the principle of proportionality to determine whether a state can restrict a certain human right under this principle. Most recently, the principle of proportionality was used in the landmark case Hirst v UK. The European Court of Human Rights sided with the plaintiff and determined that the restrictions on the right to vote for prisoners is not proportional. However, unlike the United Kingdom, the United States have not received any international scrutiny on the disenfranchisement of prisoners in their state, thus leading the author to compare both states.