Is prisoner voting

productive for society?

LINDSAY MOORE

The right to vote is taken for granted by many Canadians. Young and old alike, more Canadians than ever choose not to exercise their most basic rights at election time. Perhaps it is only when our rights are stripped from us that we realize the value and impact they can have on our lives, our families and society as a whole.

Prior to 2002, Canada’s Federal Elections Act declared that the right to vote in federal elections should not be given to any person serving time in a Canadian federal prison. Prison is punishment, and the removal of rights is seen as a part of that punishment. In 1982, however, Pierre Trudeau’s government entrenched the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the new Constitution and sparked the interest of one federal prisoner.

In 1984, Rick Sauve, convicted for murder and serving a life sentence in Kingston Penitentiary, began fighting for the right to vote for all Canadian prisoners. The basis for his petition was the section of the Charter declaring the right to vote as something held by all Canadian citizens. Citizenship is not removed from prisoners once convicted of a crime, and Sauve therefore believed it was unconstitutional for prisoners to be denied the right to vote.

The legal process of this battle lasted for 18 years and was finally brought to a close in 2002, when the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with Sauve’s arguments and declared that it was indeed unconstitutional to deny Canadian prisoners the right to vote in federal elections.

While the constitutional aspect of this debate has been brought to a close, the moral question remains. Should prisoners be allowed to vote? Those who have lost loved ones to the actions of a prisoner would understandably argue that in committing a crime, a person has forfeited some of their rights of citizenship. They have broken the law and must be punished accordingly.

It is easy to understand this argument and to see where its basis lies. It is not easy, however, to understand the argument from a prisoner’s perspective. In breaking the law, criminals have shown little concern for the Constitution. Why should we believe that its contents are important to criminals only now that they are in jail? One intriguing argument is the suggestion by Sauve that being able to vote initiates in prisoners a desire to follow the elections and campaigns very closely.

In a 1988 interview with the CBC, Sauve argued that following and participating in elections would make prisoners socially conscious and interested in the outside world.

This argument is intriguing because of the nature and goals of the prison system. Punishment is the main reason why those convicted of a crime are sent to prison. It must be remembered, however, that not all prisoners are serving life sentences. Many of them have not been convicted of violent crimes and will at some point be returning to the outside world.

For these prisoners, rehabilitation and change are supposed to occur while serving time in jail. Upon their return to society, we hope that these prisoners bring with them the ability to function in and belong to the world of law-abiding citizens. If participating in the act of voting and following the federal elections can bring prisoners to a higher level of interest in society and cause them to want to make it a better place, then voting can be a necessary step in the rehabilitation process and should indeed be granted to those serving time in prison.

Lindsay Moore is a pre-masters political studies student.