Deprivation Of the Right to Vote as A Consequential Punishment in The Light of Punitive Individualization and Constitutional Legitimacy Principles (Comparative Study Between the Egyptian and French Legislations)

Abstract

The deprivation of the right to vote was decided as an accessory penalty in both Egyptian and French legislation, and both of them dealt with this penalty a long time ago. The position of both Egyptian and French legislators regarding their view of this punishment is always evolving, but the development of Egyptian legislation is characterized by very slow, and the inability to change the ideas of the past, which are the ideas that push it towards retaining this type of punishment, despite its conflict with the principle of punitive exclusivity, and it clashed with the text of Article 87 of the Constitution for the year 2014. This is in contrast to the French legislator, who started his career with a strict view of the deprivation of the right to vote as a consequential punishment that applies by force of law in many cases. Little by little, it developed Until he ended up having to abolish this punishment completely, this is after an important decision issued by the Constitutional Council in the two appeals against the text of Article L 7 of the Electoral Law. Which, until the issuance of this decision, continued to carry deprivation of the right to vote as an accessory penalty linked to the issuance of a conviction in a certain category of crimes.  There is no place left in French legislation other than the deprivation of the right to vote as a complementary, passport penalty The court has the right to pronounce it in the cases that the law permits it to do so and within the time limits determined by these laws.