The problem of demos – limitation of an active suffrage for a convicted person who committed a particularly serious crime

Abstract

The problem of disenfranchising individuals convicted of particularly serious crimes presents significant challenges to democratic principles. While democracy emphasizes equal participation, certain exceptions – such as depriving individuals of voting rights – may be justified under specific conditions, including criminal convictions. This paper analyzes the legitimacy and impact of such limitations, focusing on the proportionality of disenfranchisement and its effects on democratic governance. It compares international practices, including those in Canada, South Africa, and various European countries, to highlight divergent approaches to prisoners’ voting rights. Special attention is given to key rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, including the cases of Hirst, Frodl, and Scoppola, which stress the importance of proportionality and individual circumstances in restricting suffrage. The analysis concludes that blanket bans on voting undermine rehabilitation efforts and democratic values, advocating for personalized assessments to balance justice, democracy, and human rights.