How much of the fundamental rights of criminals should be taken away from them?

The fundamental rights of people particularly those living in western society are considered to be their inalienable rights – rights that cannot be taken away from people. They include rights such as the right to free speech, right to a family life, right to worship, right to privacy, and right to vote and be voted for. A number of bodies including the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) are set up to protect these rights against violations by states and individuals, as well as address any violations of such rights by imposing fines on violators and awarding compensations to victims. By implication criminals in prison lose their ability to enjoy some of these rights such as the right to privacy and right to liberty. Despite this, some observers still want more of the fundamental rights of criminals to be taken away from them. The three main fundamental rights at the centre of this controversy are the right to vote, the right to sue for compensation for injury or harm, and the right to choose a defence team.

The Right of A Criminal to Vote

In Europe there is lack of agreement over the right of criminals to vote. Some European countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland and Belgium do not allow criminals to exercise their right to vote. Some European countries such as France, Italy, and Austria do allow criminals to vote but with some restrictions. Other European countries such as Germany, Finland and Denmark allow all criminals to exercise their right to vote. Why do some of these countries allow criminals the right to vote while others do not? The argument often put forward by the countries that do not allow criminals to exercise their fundamental right to vote is that criminals had decided to exclude themselves from the fundamental right of voting by showing disregard for the law. Regardless of the crimes they may have committed criminals are still within and not outside of society. Like non-criminals they are affected by policies made by politicians within the society. For this reason they should be given the opportunity to exercise their right to vote to decide who should govern them.

The Right of A Criminal to Appoint a Defence Team or Lawyer

In the United Kingdom the law entitles criminals the right to appoint a defence team or lawyer to represent them in court. Some critics of this provision have called for it to be abolished. They argue that criminals should not be allowed to pick and choose who represent them in court. They often cite the patient/medical team care arrangement as a perfect model for treating criminals in custody. According to them, a patient in hospital cannot choose the medical team who could treat him or her. In fact, a medical team is often imposed on a patient in hospital against the patient’s will. This analogy is flawed in two ways.

First, a patient in hospital is never in rivalry with the medical team treating him or her. The goal of all members of a medical team attending to a patient is for the patient to recover as quickly as possible. In contrast, a criminal is always in rivalry with the prosecutor. In all criminal cases, the prosecutor will put forward a case or evidence in court linking the defendant to a crime(s). It is the duty of the defendant to disprove this evidence. The court of law will find the defendant guilty of the charges unless the defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has not committed the alleged crime. Hence it is important for a defendant to choose a defence team or lawyer whom he or she thinks can properly represent him or her in court.

The second reason that the analogy of patient/medical team care arrangement in hospital cannot be applied to a criminal/defence team arrangement is that most of the times the right of a criminal to choose a defence team or lawyer arises when the person concerned is not actually a criminal but just a crime suspect. Being a suspect of crime suggests that a person has a case to answer in relation to the offence(s) but this does not necessarily mean that the suspect has committed the act and would be found guilty of it. Considering that a criminal conviction can ruin the life of a person forever in terms of the inability of the criminal to get a job or buy an insurance policy defendants or suspects of crimes should be given the opportunity to prove their innocence

The Right of A Criminal to Sue for Compensation

Compensation cannot be equated with the amount of suffering or harm experienced by victims of harm or injury but can go a long way in helping a victim to put behind the ugly incident. While there is no opposition to the right of non criminals to sue for compensation for harm or injury, some people have argued that criminals who suffer harm or injury should not be allowed to sue for compensation. They consider this to be part of punishment for crimes perpetrated by the criminals even though the criminals have been punished by the court of law for the crime. The consequence of having a ban on the right of criminals to sue for compensation is that criminals are likely to be subject of abuse by people looking after them if these people recognise that the criminals cannot sue them for compensation for mistreatment. Aside from being persecuted by people looking after them, criminals will be punished doubly if they are denied the right to sue for compensation for injury or harm - they will be punished for committing a crime and for suffering injury or harm. This will constitute disproportionate form of punishment and will contravene the rule of fairness.

Therefore, the three main fundamental rights - the right to vote, the right to appoint a defence team and the right to sue for compensation - at the centre of this debate should not be taken away from criminals. Criminals should be allowed to exercise these rights whenever the need arises to ensure a fair and just society. What do you think?