Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 235--247 Prisoner Disenfranchisement Policy: A Threat to Democracy? Mandeep K. Dhami University of Cambridge The right to vote is one of the fundamental principles of democracy. However, full suffrage of the adult population has not been realized in many present-day democ- racies. Internationally, millions of prisoners (and ex-offenders in some nations) are disenfranchised. Being excluded from the civic process is a threat to democracy. In this article, I argue that removing a prisoner’s right to vote can lead to inequality and injustice that is counter to democratic ideals. By contrast, enfranchisement of prisoners can promote their rehabilitation and social reintegration, and can have a real impact on the political climate of a nation. I also discuss the arguments for and against prisoner disenfranchisement, explore public opinion on this issue, and track recent legislative changes to disenfranchisement policy internationally. Areas for future psychological inquiry are highlighted. The basic principles for electoral democracy are laid out in international law. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) de- clares that “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:...(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expres- sion of the will of the electors...”; Article 2 sets out that this applies “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Although international law does not always form part of a nation’s domestic law, it does tend to influence domestic law and be used as a benchmark by which to evaluate these laws. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mandeep K. Dhami, University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge, UK, CB3 9DT, UK. [e-mail: mkd25@cam.ac.uk] 235 C  2005 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues