Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hi people, I had my exams delayed until august and I'm tearing my hair out trying to understand the nuance in this question.

    'Under English law, a convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication' - Wilberforce, Raymond v Honey

    Is this an accurate representation of the status of prisoner rights in England and Wales? Answer with particular reference to: right to vote and right to start a family life.'

    Okay, so from what I understand the right to vote is taken away expressly, and the right to family life taken away by necessary implication. But I don't really understand what the difference is between these two? In my mind I think the only right truly taken away expressly is the right to liberty, and then the rest are all a consequence of that ie youre in prison so you cant go out and vote, youre in prison so you cant go have sexy time with the wife and make a child. Or is it more, the implied family life one is taken away DIRECTLY from the imprisonment, whereas the right to vote being taken away sits side by side the right to liberty being taken away?

    And then the question itself, I mean this is the position of the English law, that some rights are taken away expressly and some impliedly, the right to vote expressly, the right to family impliedly...so what am I supposed to say in my answer? Because surely if in the english system they decide that the right to vote should be taken away, not as a result of imprisonment, then itll just fall under the express category? I mean the question isnt asking if I think the right to vote SHOULD be taken away expressly or impliedly, just whether it is or not? Am I reading this question all wrong? To me the distinction between express and implied seems meaningless?

    Gah! I just dont get it, any help would be much appreciated.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    They could easily set up a place to vote inside a prison - the right to vote is explicitly withheld from prisoners, and so it taken away expressly. However, there is a lot of talk of this changing, and the ECHR has been ruled to supersede this. I would focus a lot of the essay on discussing this.

    With regard to family life, whilst the right to a normal family life is withheld by necessary implication, have you considered visits, letters and open prisons and the role they plat in being able to maintain some form of family life?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    They could easily set up a place to vote inside a prison - the right to vote is explicitly withheld from prisoners, and so it taken away expressly. However, there is a lot of talk of this changing, and the ECHR has been ruled to supersede this. I would focus a lot of the essay on discussing this.

    With regard to family life, whilst the right to a normal family life is withheld by necessary implication, have you considered visits, letters and open prisons and the role they plat in being able to maintain some form of family life?
    Hey tory88, thanks for the quick reply. I've looked at the governments position on the right to vote and the Hirst case and everything. I was going to just discuss the current situation but whats confused me is the distinction between a right being expressly taken away and a right being withheld by necessary implication. What exactly is the difference there and how does it come into play in practical terms?

    Oh and with regard to family life I think in this module its asking more about the right to start a family through IVF and AI. And I could answer a question about that with reference to Dickson easy enough. Its just the way this question is worded thats tripping me up. I'm not exactly sure what its asking. Is it asking me to critique the idea that the english system follows wilberforces quote 30 years later, that the english system ignores his claim about express and implied rights? Or is it just asking me to recount what the express and implied rights are? As far as I'm aware the english system DOES follow the express and implied right thing yeah?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I mean I understand that the right to vote for prisoners is a hot debate and that the ECHR dont think it should be an inherent part of punishment that the right is taken away, and that the English government is hesitant on full re-entrenchment of the english prisoners. If the question was 'describe the current state of the law in England with regards to a prisoners right to vote' I could answer it easily enough, but this question seems to be asking something else. It seems to be asking whether or not I think Wilberforces quote is still relevant to the law today, no? This is where my confusion lies, in the wording of the question. Im just not sure what its asking exactly.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randymandy)
    Hey tory88, thanks for the quick reply. I've looked at the governments position on the right to vote and the Hirst case and everything. I was going to just discuss the current situation but whats confused me is the distinction between a right being expressly taken away and a right being withheld by necessary implication. What exactly is the difference there and how does it come into play in practical terms?

    Oh and with regard to family life I think in this module its asking more about the right to start a family through IVF and AI. And I could answer a question about that with reference to Dickson easy enough. Its just the way this question is worded thats tripping me up. I'm not exactly sure what its asking. Is it asking me to critique the idea that the english system follows wilberforces quote 30 years later, that the english system ignores his claim about express and implied rights? Or is it just asking me to recount what the express and implied rights are? As far as I'm aware the english system DOES follow the express and implied right thing yeah?
    Something that is expressly taken away will be something which has a law forbidding it, whereas something that is witheld by necessary implication is as a result of being incarcerated. At least that's my understanding.

    I'm hesitant to interpret the question as I am not involved in law (in fact I'm training to teach physics and maths), just have an interest in it. But if I were to answer the question I would interpret it as "is the current situation in agreement with Wilberforce's quote? What agrees? What doesn't? To what extent? Focus on prisoner's voting rights and family life."
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.