Human Rights (or lack of) Again

[david63]

Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'
Just seen this - when will The European Court of Human Rights start to realise that this sort of person does not have any human rights, they gave these up when they committed their crimes.

The only saving grace is that all the ECHR has said is that their sentences have to be reviewed - sometime and even then there is nothing to say that they will be released.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

All human beings, even the most reprehensible ones, have Human Rights, although some non-base rights ones can be suspended for a term or permanently.

Denying liberty for wrongdoers is a human right that is suspended for the duration of a sentence but there are base ones that cannot be removed from those in custody (remand or convicted) such as being fed, given medical attention when needed, protection from abuse and torture (from gaolers or convicts) and "cruel and unusual" punishments (corporal, capital).

Where a "whole-life" tariff has been applied to a convict it is for the juristriction to justify that this extreme suspension is justified for the protection of the public and the ECHR to recognise and accept this ultimate sanction which impacts on only a very small % of the total prison population.

Human Rights are there to protect us all and should be cherished by the citizens of the UK and Europe - and not signed away carelessly.

||||
o Q
<
__

|>o<|

[Mo2013]

This is ridiculous. These convicted murderers by their actions have forfeited their human rights other than being fed, treated when ill and not subjected to ill-treatment. If a life sentence has been handed down, then it should mean life.

[Kendhni]

The ruling only seems to say that there has to be a 'possibility of release'.
I can think of several ways that could be interpreted

[Silver_Shiney]

I would be more impressed if this august body paid more attention to the human rights of the victim....

[oldbluefox]

I feel sure that when the ECHR Bill was drafted it was not intended to protect hardened criminals, guilty of some outstandingly heinous crimes or terrorists with clever lawyers who play the system.
I wonder what is the point of drafing our own laws which are then overturned by ECHR?
Long ago we should have locked up these characters and thrown away the key. When they committed their crimes they relinquished all rights to freedom.

[The Monocled Mutineer]

I would be more impressed if this august body paid more attention to the human rights of the victim....

The ECHR protects and promotes ALL Human Rights.

[Dark Knight]

I suppose it would depend if you class murderers, rapists, child molesters, child pornographers and terrorists as human?

once you have established this, then you could perhaps go on to discuss what rights these people should have, if any and what is a suitable punishment for taking another life or raping a child and filming it

[Boris+]

If we brought back the death sentence again, we wouldn't have this problem!

Sorry about that - but it really annoys me that people who have killed others not in an accident but on purpose then think they have 'human rights'.

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

I would be more impressed if this august body paid more attention to the human rights of the victim....

The ECHR protects and promotes ALL Human Rights.

I didn't say they didn't. Please read my post again.

[Silver_Shiney]

If we brought back the death sentence again, we wouldn't have this problem!

Sorry about that - but it really annoys me that people who have killed others not in an accident but on purpose then think they have 'human rights'.

Em

Exactly. With the advances in forensic science, the scope for error is reduced. Take the case of poor Drummer Rigby. There's no doubt of guilt there. The only problem with execution in their case, though, is they'd be hailed as martyrs by some dipsticks. Murderers bleat about their "human rights" to food, light, welfare etc, but they didn't give a stuff about their victims' rights to the same things.

[Mo2013]

I suppose it would depend if you class murderers, rapists, child molesters, child pornographers and terrorists as human?

once you have established this, then you could perhaps go on to discuss what rights these people should have, if any and what is a suitable punishment for taking another life or raping a child and filming it

My opinion is that people who commit this sort of crime are not human as we know it, and to take someone else's life means that you have in effect forfeiting your own. They should never be considered for release because I don't believe they would ever be able to take a proper place back in society and who is going to guarantee that they won't kill again? If the death penalty is not available, then they should be incarcerated for life, without release and only given basic comforts i.e. food, drink, a place to sleep, treatment when ill and that's IT !

[Mo2013]

As it stands, even people like that have rights, and that is what we are discussing but I believe that their rights should only extend to food and drink etc. They are monstrous anomalies of humanity, not like you or I but if we have to keep them in prison then they should only be afforded the very basics to survive. There should be no possibility of them appealing their sentence etc.

[Silver_Shiney]

As it stands, even people like that have rights, and that is what we are discussing but I believe that their rights should only extend to food and drink etc. They are monstrous anomalies of humanity, not like you or I but if we have to keep them in prison then they should only be afforded the very basics to survive. There should be no possibility of them appealing their sentence etc.

And that, dear lady, is where I think we must agree to disagree. You take away someone's rights against their will, you forfeit your own rights.

IMHO, where there is no doubt of guilt, murderers should pay the ultimate price for their crime. For me, I am 99.99% certain that Bridger murdered little April Jones but that 0.01% would stop me from executing him. Brady, though, has not only admitted his crime but now has the audacity to say he did it for recreation. If there is, indeed, such a thing as a truth drug, it should be administered to find out what he did with Keith Bennett's body, and then terminated.

[Mo2013]

Alan, I agree absolutely, but we no longer have a death penalty. What I am saying is that as it stands, whether we agree or not, the law gives such people certain rights. However, I do not agree with them having a right of appeal, and I do not want to see them having any possibility of release. I assure you that I am entirely on the same page with you on this.

[Boris+]

Then when I come to think of it, instead of executing these extreme criminals, the poor old tax payer has to fork out for their upkeep (and maybe also the upkeep of their families) - and then on top of that a couple of them have the blasted cheek to make the tax payer blasted well pay for the legal costs of the appeal!!!!

I think that if Europe wants these extreme criminals to have rights it can firstly look after them and their families and secondly foot the blasted bill!

Em

[Kendhni]

I am following a case at the minute ... so far the media has simply reported it as an assault and a kidnapping but there is much much more to it ... I know the chap that carried out the assault and I have heard (first-hand) his version of eventss.

The case has been suspended for a while (so there is no way I am going to go into all the sordid details which have not yet been reported in the media) .. I hope these come out in court ... one has to ask what would you do if you found a chain of pornographic and obscene text messages on your 13 year old nieces phone and then found the 28(?) year old man responsible hanging out in her bedroom (after he had been warned to stay away) ... well this chap went absolutely berserk ('assault' does not describe his actions) and he knows it is very likely he will be going to prison for it.

A lot of people say what they would do, but he did it and at the minute I am finding it hard to condemn him too much (although, I only know his side of the story) ... however one can never condone vigilante behaviour.

[Mo2013]

Whilst anyone can sympathise with this man, and even applaud his reaction, the fact is that we have laws in this country and, notwithstanding the circumstances, he has assaulted someone and broken the law. One can only hope that his assault is looked upon as justifiable and dealt with leniently. The people who deal in the law do not let emotion come into it, they just look at the evidence and the laws broken and deal with cases objectively. Similar situation to taking out a burglar who has broken into your house. The whole victim/criminal thing is flawed, but that is the way the law works. Not saying I agree with it but we cannot take the law into our own hands.

[Mervyn and Trish]

To my mind there is only one inalienable right - the right to life - and all other rights have to be earned and balanced with responsibilities. When a person is found by the courts to have deliberately taken away someone else's right to life (i.e. murder, as opposed to manslaughter) that should, in my view, automatically bring a life sentence, meaning exactly that. No ifs or buts.

I am against the return of the death penalty because of the risk of mistake, and for that reason I think juries would be reluctant to return a guilty verdict in many cases. If a person is in prison and we find we have made a mistake they should be released and generously compensated.

But once on a life sentence, unless there is a successful appeal, that should be the end of it. No whinging to the ECHR, who should keep their noses out when the correct process as defined by national law has been followed.