Prisoners and the right to vote: the decision in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Examines the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Hirst v United Kingdom (74025/01) on whether domestic law which disenfranchised prisoners failed to pursue a legitimate aim and was both arbitrary and disproportionate. Analyses and compares the reasoning in the earlier ruling by the Administrative Court in R. (on the application of Pearson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department in which three prisoners unsuccessfully challenged the compatibility of the Representation of the People Act 1983 s.3(1) with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Protocol 1 Art.3 on free elections and Art.14. Identifies and explains the different approach to the prisoners' claims and the justification for limiting their fundamental rights between the two rulings. Discusses both the influence on the European Court of the Canadian Supreme Court's judgment in Suave v Canada (No.2) and the underlying issue of whether prisoners automatically lost certain basic human rights on being imprisoned or whether those rights were retained subject to legitimate restrictions other than a person's incarceration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".