The Benefit of Personal Experience and Personal Study: Prisoners and the Politics of Enfranchisement
| Author | Cormac Behan |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885510389559 |
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
89559Cormac BehanThe Prison Journal
© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Article
The Prison Journal
91(1) 7 –31
The Benefit of
© 2011 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Personal Experience
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885510389559
http://tpj.sagepub.com
and Personal Study:
Prisoners and the
Politics of
Enfranchisement
Cormac Behan1
Abstract
Prisoners and ex-prisoners have played a prominent role in modern Irish
history. Yet despite using their prison experience for political advancement,
on release, few political leaders became vocal advocates of penal reform in
general or prisoner enfranchisement in particular. Prior to the passing of the
Electoral (Amendment) Act in 2006, Irish prisoners were in an anomalous
position: they were allowed to register, but no facility existed, for them to
vote. However, this did not prevent prisoners from engaging with, and at
times, challenging the political system, both north and south throughout the
20th century. Much has been written about political activity among prisoners
in Northern Ireland but relatively little about their endeavors in the Irish
Republic. This article begins with an examination of political participation
among prisoners in the early decades of the Irish State. Despite the legal
and political struggle by prisoners and penal reformers to achieve enfran-
chisement, when it was granted, it was in the context of electoral, rather
than penal reform. Prisoner enfranchisement did not become a major issue
in Ireland in contrast to other countries and reasons are examined from a
historical and political perspective.
1Institute of Criminology, University College Dublin, Ireland
Corresponding Author:
Cormac Behan, Institute of Criminology, University College Dublin, Roebuck Castle, Belfield,
Dublin, Ireland
Email: cormacbehan@hotmail.com
8
The Prison Journal 91(1)
Keywords
prisoner enfranchisement, prisoners rights, electoral reform
Introduction
Prisoner enfranchisement is a major source of debate and international con-
troversy. In recent years, there have been both political and legal devel-
opments concerning the enfranchisement of prisoners and ex-prisoners
(Rottinghaus & Baldwin, 2007). In Israel (Ewald, 2002), Canada (Mofina,
2002), South Africa (Muntingh, 2004), Australia (Redman, Brown, & Mercurio,
2009), Europe (Easton, 2009), Hong Kong (Hong Kong Constitutional and
Mainland Affairs Bureau, 2009), and the United States (King, 2006), there
have been impassioned political and philosophical discussions and legal
arguments about the enfranchisement of the incarcerated. In December 2006,
the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) passed the Electoral (Amendment) Act
which allowed prisoners to vote by means of postal ballot. As a result, Irish
prisoners had the first opportunity to exercise their franchise in a general elec-
tion in May 2007.
This article examines the case of the Republic of Ireland and prisoner
enfranchisement. It begins by outlining the political involvement of prisoners
in the early decades of a state founded by prisoners, with much political agi-
tation taking place behind bars. Despite being denied the opportunity to vote,
this did not prevent them from engaging with the political system, both north
and south of the border throughout the 20th century. (For an examination of
the contribution of northern prisoners to the political process, see McEvoy,
2001.) Prior to enfranchisement, Irish prisoners were in a somewhat anoma-
lous position—they were legally allowed to register, but did not have the
facility, to vote. When prisoner enfranchisement was achieved in 2006, it was
not in the context of penal reform or a civil rights act but rather as a stand-
alone piece of electoral reform after relatively little discussion and almost
no controversy that might accompany a similar measure in other countries
(Behan & O’Donnell, 2008).
Prisoners of the Past
Political History and Penal Politics
Prisoners and ex-prisoners have played a prominent role in modern Irish his-
tory. Many 19th-century political leaders were imprisoned, including John
Cormac Behan
9
Mitchel, Michael Davitt, and Charles Stewart Parnell. Michael Davitt (1885),
the internationalist and labor leader, was one of the few political leaders who
used his prison experience to campaign for penal reform. He spent 7 years in
Dartmoor prison for gun-running as part of the Fenian movement. During his
year in Portland jail for involvement in agrarian agitation, he wrote Leaves
From a Prison Diary; Or, Lectures to a “Solitary” Audience (1885), which
chronicled prison life and his reflections on penal reform. Davitt was subse-
quently a member of the Humanitarian League’s criminal law and prison’s
department which “sought to humanize the conditions of prison life and to
affirm that the true purpose of imprisonment was the reformation, not the
mere punishment, of the offender” (Bailey, 1997, p. 306).
It was in the years immediately after the 1916 Rising that prisoners began
to take center stage in Irish politics with an upsurge in republicanism and the
rise in support for Sinn Féin and the Irish Volunteers. It is estimated that the
British government interned nearly 2,000 prisoners after the Rising (Lee, 1989,
p. 37). In the period afterward, many candidates standing at elections wore as
a badge of honor their violent (and illegal) opposition to British rule. In 1917,
the first bye-election after the Rising returned former prisoner Count Plunkett,
(father of executed rebel leader, Joseph Mary Plunkett) as an independent
member of parliament (MP) for Roscommon North with Sinn Féin support.
In the next bye-election, Joe McGuinness stood as a candidate for the South
Longford seat. At the time, McGuinness was serving a sentence in Lewes
Gaol, for his part in the Rising and his election slogan was “Vote him in to
get him out!” Later that year, future president of the Executive Council, W.
T. Cosgrave, won a seat for Sinn Féin in the Kilkenny bye-election from his
prison cell.
The first post–World War I election held in the United Kingdom (including
Ireland) was under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 1918.
This had abolished property requirements and allowed all men above 21 and
women above 30 to vote (Foot, 2005, p. 233). The Irish electorate rose from
700,000 in 1910 to just under two million for the 1918 election (Connolly,
1998, p. 206). Of the 105 seats at stake, Sinn Féin won 73. In keeping with
their abstentionist platform, instead of taking their seats in the Westminster
Parliament, Sinn Féin MPs convened the First Dáil. All 105 MPs elected to the
British Parliament in the 1918 election were invited to attend the First Dáil
(Lower House of Parliament). However, participation would have been anath-
ema to the six Irish Parliamentary Party and 26 Unionist MPs. At the inaugural
meeting in the Mansion House, Dublin, on January 21, 1919, only 27 of the 73
Sinn Féin TDs (Teachta Dála—MPs) were in attendance. Of those who could
not attend, 35 were listed in the official records of the Dáil as “fé ghlas ag Gallaibh”
10
The Prison Journal 91(1)
(i.e., “imprisoned by the foreign enemy”: Roll of 1st Dáil, 1919). Of the
73 constituencies that returned Sinn Féin MPs, four were elected in two con-
stituencies. Thus, half of the 69 Sinn Féin representatives elected to the First
Dáil were in prison. Former prisoner Cathal Brugha presided over the largely
symbolic proceedings. In April 1919, after his escape from Lincoln jail,
Eamon de Valera was elected as president of Dáil Éireann. Despite the parlia-
ment being recognized only by Soviet Russia, this meeting is listed on the
Oireachtas website as the First Dáil (see http://historical-debates.oireachtas.
ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html). The British authorities banned the Dáil
in September 1919.
In November 1922, after the Irish Free State was established, the Minister
for Home Affairs (with responsibility for justice, including prisons), Kevin
O’Higgins, proudly proclaimed in the Free State parliament that there “is not
a member of this present Government who has not been in jail . . . We have
had the benefit of personal experience and personal study of these problems.”
He continued,
I think that everyone here would agree that we should aim at improve-
ment and reform in the existing prison system. I think we would be
unanimous in the view that a change and reform would be desirable.
Personally I can conceive nothing more brutalizing, and nothing more
calculated to make a man rather a dangerous member of society, than
the existing system. But one does not attempt sweeping reforms in a
country situated as this country is at the moment. (Kevin O’Higgins,
TD, Dáil Debates, 1922, Vol. 1, col. 2321-2322)
With so many prisoners and ex-prisoners achieving prominent political
positions, there may have been an expectation that this might impact posi-
tively on the development of penal policy. Nevertheless, on release, few, if
any, championed prisoners’ rights or prisoner enfranchisement. Most of these
and future former prisoners sought to make a break with their past. Indeed,
while many took pride in their penal experience, the released politicians were
quick to put their prison past behind them and some who went on to have
political responsibility for the penal system became quite punitive, showing
little or no interest in reform. Despite the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial