A matter of law

[andrewducker]

I'm somewhat confused by the fuss over the votes for prisoners stuff that's currently in the newspapers.

The government has to do _something_, as it's been found to be in the wrong by the Europan Court of Human Rights. However, it seems unsure what, exactly, it has to do to be in the right. I know that human rights legislation is going to have some grey areas, but is there a reason why the ECHR wouldn't say "You are doing X, which is wrong, in order to be compliant you must do Y."?

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I've not been following the story (I honestly don't care: I think the changes being proposed are generally positive, but not actually fixing any large problems we have) but the vague impression I had is that there was no more fixed principle: that the ECHR had decided (random link: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/05/30/prisoner-voting-back-on-the-human-rights-agenda-this-week/) that a blanket ban wasn't in accord with the convention on human rights, and the fact that's no-one's sued yet suggests that countries with partial bans are ok, but there was no precedent on what was sufficient, and the ruling didn't make one. (I don't know if it could have or should have, nor whether the judges made any helpful suggestions.)

[andrewducker]

Aaah. So the convention says "People shall be allowed to vote", the court has interpreted that as "You can't blanket ban people from voting.", but it's not clear what exceptions they would allow.

Sounds like something that really ought to be hashed out as part of an international agreement, rather than individual countries randomly trying stuff out until the court agrees it.