Prisoners be given the right to vote in the UK

at
Categories
Tags

Should prisoners be given the right to vote in the UK? An examination of whether the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights provides a wider right to democracy.

 

Sample Solution

Prisoners be given the right to vote in the UK
There are few or no votes in prison reform and little interest in the rights and responsibilities of those behind bars. One of the reasons is that prisoners themselves can’t vote. Five years ago the European court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unlawful and in violation of article 3 of the First Protocol of the European convention on human rights. Since then, the government has employed a range of delaying tactics to avoid implementing the ruling. Prisoners should be given the right to vote. As the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] said, barring prisoners from voting may actually harm rehabilitation work, since participation in elections is likely to encourage them to become responsible, law-abiding citizens. The Prison Reform Trust has now made a formal complaint to the Council of Europe about the government’s failure to comply with the court judgment and amend UK election law. This should be done without a fuss and further delay.

Source: Enard KR. HMP-5720-04 Government Financing of Health Care: Military Health System, Veterans Health System, Public Health. February 2019.
The Trump administration has been very clear about its intentions for the FDA and has aggressively pressed for a more streamlined process for drug approvals in order to significantly increase the number of generic drug approvals as part of the American Patients First blueprint.6 This blueprint is intended to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs for individuals and Medicare Part D beneficiaries and will ultimately have a major impact on the economy and the pharmaceutical industry.7 Overall, the Trump administration is heavily influencing the financing for drug research and approvals through its policies and budget allocations to the FDA.
Most importantly, the CDC has seen a 1.2 billion dollar decrease in funding since Trump’s election, aligning with his administration’s view on the importance of public health.5 This decrease in funding negatively impacted the CDC’s initiatives related to immunizations, emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases, chronic disease prevention and health promotion, birth defects and other disabilities, environmental health, injury prevention and control, occupational safety and health, global health, and public health preparedness and response.5 Each of these areas saw a negative impact in hundreds of millions of dollars that will substantially worsen the health of the United States across multiple areas of public health. Ultimately, the Trump administration’s choice to decrease CDC funding will have substantial long-lasting impacts on population health in the U.S.
There is a significant body of evidence demonstrating the importance of public health investment for a nation that goes beyond the health of the population and that demonstrates significant financial and economic benefits.8 According to the CDC, ninety percent of U.S. healthcare expenditures are for chronic and mental health conditions; however, only 2.5% of national health expenditures is actually spent on government public health activities.9,10 The United States spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country, without significantly better health outcomes and with much of that spending on prevent

This question has been answered.

Get Answer