Letters: Limiting the cost of jail vote challenge

IT IS an anathema that convicted criminals may have the right to sue the government for a human rights issue when they have so ignored the human rights of their victims.

Westminster yesterday voted not to bow to the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. This is likely to result in claims for damages from criminals. The government may not have a defence to such actions and may spend millions of pounds in legal costs.

There is a simple solution. If the government publicises the names of those criminals who are claiming damages (a matter of public record) and relays that information to the victims of their crimes, then the victims can themselves instruct lawyers to claim compensation from the perpetrators. They are certain to win at least some damages. It is a straightforward matter to seize money about to be paid in damages to one person by another person who has a valid claim.

Realistically, once criminals realise that they will not actually receive any money, the claims will run dry. If they do not, then, I respectfully suggest, society will prefer that money, even public money, goes to victims rather than perpetrators.

Geoff Clarke QC

North Berwick

REGARDING the current debate about allowing prisoners in our jails to vote in elections, the House of Commons' debate (your article, 10 February) gives a clear indication as to the nature of the real problem.

It seems a matter of simple commonsense to compel every adult citizen, prisoner or not, to cast their vote, whether they are in lawful custody, a mental hospital or at liberty, allowing exemptions as the need arises.

Given the low turnout of voters in most elections, a few extra voters might have a beneficial effect on the outcome.

To seek the exclusion of convicted prisoners from the ballot box can only be seen as a form of hypocrisy given the recently extended range of folk now getting their collars felt.

Jim Bradley

Selkirk