It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Should Human rights be abolished for Prisoners?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 08:08 AM
Just a thought - Current problem - Prison service, mass over crowding - (depends on your deffinition of overcrowding) Yes there quite frankly are people in jail who dont need to be there and removing them would ease the problem, but the maint point as i see it is prison is far too SOFT - Very few people are scared of prison anymore, hence repeat offenders. Think about it - 3 square meals a day, TV, pool tables, hot showers, not having to work, and being in the same place as like minded people (imagine all the interesting topics of conversation, how to break into this make of car, best way to murder and conceal bodies...)

So what if when being imprisoned you not only lost the right to vote but some/all human rights... At the very least you could save £££ on the electricity/heating bills for prisons and overcrowding would be solved as you could cram more offenders into every cell, instead of 2 prisoners to a cell 4 or 6. So what do we think?

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 12:34 PM
I say have various levels of how harsh the prison experience is. Level one should be what prison is in general. This will be for first offenders. Punishment is normal, but not heavy handed. All human rights are still respected.

Second offense. The prisoner should go to the next cell block over where life is a little rougher, and they have stringent expectations for each prisoner to meet by the prison administration. Failure to act with discipline or civilty will get you punished in some sort of way. The hole or something.

Multiple repeat visits to Prison? Go to the next cell block over and get him 'reformed'
Basically chain them to a chair with their eyes pried open and force them to watch ettiquete, laws, red asphalt, inspirational speached and talks, anthony robbins, the secret, the golden rule, why criminals make bad people -VI, until he comes out a gentleman.

I personally feel that although some prisoners are practically animals and require some physical coersion, i feel in general they should retain most of their physical rights. They should get more sunshine, more education, and have less fear of getting anally raped by some dude who's been watching him for the last hour in the shower room. Otherwise the system will just be throwing wood into the fire and making the person more psychotic.

It should be a sucky experience, complete with organized labor activities. Not picking up trash, moor like he dumbass go clean the back of this garbage truck out, and prep it for the next run, or go clean the bird poop of the railings. Something that sucks.

I'm not for stun belts, and twenty zillion shackles.

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 02:26 AM
I don't think that prisoners should lose their human rights if placed in jail ... would that include a right to a fair trial??

And never forget who makes the laws, the government could make a law stating that anyone with blonde hair should be imprisoned (extreme example I know), and if human rights have been taken away from prisoners, they would have a torrid time but have actually done nothing wrong, this could happen if we ever have an bad government elected in, and use rules that originally were there to protect us, against us.

Prisoners deserve their human rights, yes even the worst. We would not be able to call our self a "modern" and "civilised" country if we did not allow these. But, I do agree that conditions in prisons could be called a bit too "soft", but to be fair you only really get these in prisons for lower category prisoners. In short, make condtions a little less warm and cosy for offenders, but keep the human rights!

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:04 AM
I wonder what sort of effect this ever more brutal prison regime would have on those supposed to work and administer it?

It's already a difficult job as things are now but expecting the Prison officers to deliberately assist in treating human beings held for long periods in an ever more inhuman way is not only just wrong but asking for trouble further down the line.

Here in Northern Ireland we have had many attempts at 'rough justice'.

So-called 'joy-riders' being beaten by a gang of (usually) around 6 grown men has been a regular news item here.

They burst into the 'target's home, one is usually armed with a gun to ensure the victim of the beating lies there and takes it (and that no-one else intervenes).
Baseball bats with nails through them and long heavy iron bars seem to be the preferred weapons.
They then proceed to beat the youth without stopping until they are certain they are leaving him (it's almost always a him) with several bones broken.

Sometimes they'll shoot the person through the back of the knee (or both knees, which is your 'classic' knee-capping).
If the 'target' is deemed sufficiently 'worthy' (say a repeat offender) then they might go for a 'Crucifixion' (shoot through both knees, both ankles and both elbows).

There was a time when people showed up for a 'nutting' (shot in the back of the head, killed, of course) which was the only way they could ensure the rest of their family were left alone and out of it.......

.....and (nuttings aside) we still have/had repeat offenders.

So I'm afraid day-dreams that getting even more tough, brutal and vicious will actually solve anything much or do any 'good' don't really make sense to me.

I suppose you can choose to live in a barbarian hell-hole like that if you like but I myself prefer not to.
I think most sensible people would not either.

Instead of looking for something more threatening and those illusive 'hard', 'firm' and 'harsh' measures to do the 'trick' why not just look elsewhere to places with a low level of crime and a small (inexpensive) prison system with few inmates.

Instead of always looking west to what the USA does and building a system of vast incarceration (just be honest about it and just call it a gulag?) why not start looking east to what the rest of Europe does?
If only through financial self-interest?

Is the almost religious-like 'appeal' of being 'tough' blinding people so much?

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:41 AM
Its a very peculiar problem. I mean personally I'd say that someone who has committed a serious crime no longer deserves human rights. Rapists, murderers, kidnappers are all people who seem to forget that their victims have rights, and they should be treated in kind.

Recently the Sun (a paper for the less intellectual reader but still with undeniable courage) posted an that an insider reported Ian Huntley (the sick, twisted abuser and murder of Holly and Jessica) was outraged because he didn't get any chocloate... and was rewarded with a large bag of sweets.
Now its only a trivial problem, but its a good example.
Chocoloate? He should be lucky to still be alive. If he had lived in my neighbourhood the people would have probably lynched him.

He brutally murdered the girls (the first while the second watched) and is being treated like a common criminal. He should be locked away in a dark hole and forgotten about. And its likely he also will only have to serve half of his term.

A more serious and less humane prison system would certainly deter alot of these antisocial youths who seem set on tormenting everyone around them too. Lock 'em away with minimal rations for two months and it'll fix them.

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:21 AM

[edit on 8-2-2007 by phoenixhasrisin]

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 03:57 PM
Thread Advise
I'm not 100% opposed to rights reductions but I'm sure many influential people would be. So ROBERTSON needs to think about what the opposition arguments might be and whether to accommodate them. For example UKTruthSeeker mentioned the right to a fair trial.
Personally I'm against the death penalty (unless of course you’re going to do something useful like scientific research to save other peoples, and plus animals lives).

So to sell the Threads idea you certainly need to maintain a right to fair trial (for nothing else this helps protects us against the prospect of an authoritarian state).
Being against denying them “the right to life” would further massively broaden the popularity of what C ROBERTSON IS saying. And so politically both these sound a lot less extreme than denying all human rights (as you’ve just left at least one out, that causes people to think more about the rest)

Class Lawsuits…
But if the prison service can be sued for e.g. not doing enough to stop someone commiting suicide; then that makes me mad. And it is human right (related) legislation that enables this.
I think most people would agree with making the prison service 100% free from be sued; providing simultaneously criminal law protected the inmates against those prison staff who may otherwise violate it. We cannot have the sort of extreme-sadistic practices Sminkeypinky was warning us against. If nothing else because they might leave people more dangerous when they come out of prison than when they went in (i.e. psychologically unsound).

I myself wonder “whether all government departments should be legally autonomist?” My reasoning is: it individuals who brake laws, and cause management to get out of hand. Therefore I believe it is individuals who should be held accountable (not the British state itself).
Accidents happen and they are a fact of life; and when negligence (such as manslaughter) happens it is a criminal matter. I don’t believe in-betweens; because although people can have good excuses for negligence, sometimes they should and are let-off (in line with all reasonable the principles of justice).

Prison Conditions…

I believe that prisons should be three things…
1. Places of public protection
2. Places of reform
3. Places of deterrent

1. First Impressions: So I strongly believe that the first time you go to prison should also be the worst time you go to prison. Right now the opposite is the case; particularly with young offenders. Young prisons are so much better places to be in than adult prisons. But I believe this serves almost no purpose other than to make the state partially complicate in tempting the young into a life of crime; by which time their criminal record and culture has ruled out huge opportunities in our society, therefore adding fuel to the prospects that their life will indeed be one of crime.
2. Escalating Sentences for Repeat Offenders: Given the need to protect the public, and reform the criminal I believe that: “the sentencing guidelines available to judge should dramatically increase for every time a criminal has been to prison previously. Of course it only at the end of trial that sentences are given out, and so we could keep (in my view stupid) defendant anonymity with regard to previous convictions during almost all the trial.

3. I believe the physical design of even the whole of our prison system is wrong. Living quarters should be little more than dormitories inside sheds suspended above the ground by wooded-steel beams. I wouldn’t object to tents; but there is a risk people will dig holes out of these, and through the surrounding fences.
Things like food should be healthy and vegetarian. There is no need to give prisoners meet as it agricultural energy conversions means it always costs more than vegetables; and anyway apparently it can interfere with some peoples religious-moral beliefs.

Concrete buildings: These should consist of colleges and workshops, and staff accommodation.

The workshops would contribute to prison costs; but at the same time would provide the economy with well paid, useful skills (something that is lacking particularly in the arms as well as other manufacturing sectors).
Because the workshops can teach useful skills their value will far exceed anything they produce. This is because a reformed criminal is not only reformed but if they have been trained specifically in areas the economy is lacking skills; they will also be earning good that is taxed (U.K people loose other 40% of their net incomes on average to the state).

Factories: For long term prisoners their everyday lives should consist of working for industrial plants that pay the government their wages.
I and most other people would almost certainly not feel sorry for them; as in order to be a long term prisoner you have done something disgusting like paedophiler, murder, rape ect. And where this is not the case, it is a possible question of law amendments; but certainly not prison conditions.

phoenixhasrisen I love your intellect; but given it’s full one word I have to ask are visiting from the Thought Police? And what evidence do you have against this?

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:03 AM
Sorry guys, should have outlined this better - Everone has the right to a fair trial and i would'nt want to change this, is a part of a long democratic history. As for the death sentence im generaly aginst it yes, however i shall leave this for another thread to discuss. I'm primmarily interested in making prision less "fluffy" - workshops are a much better idea - as you said it would help cover costs, make them all vegitarian - sure, is'nt it supposed to lower violence levels? However prison needs to bew more segrigated - theres no point putting frasudsters amongst murders is there? wont they just make more extreme criminals out of them? And yes to more crampt dorms, certainly no tv, a lightbulb if there lucky...

However you do wonder about the right to a fair trial when people who have been id'd, caught on cctv, have finger print evdence against them, numerous witnesses to there crime, a history of extremisim and a house full of bomb making equipment and they can plead not guilt to trying to blow people up? That makes me sick

But then thats more to do witht the people we're dealing with rather than the justice system.

Again though, as mentioned reforms are needed so that "life" sentences aren't 10 years and are near 50 - just the lack of prison spaces mean shorter prison stints, meaning more repeat offenders, meaning more prison space is needed - it's a vicious circle but basicly we need harsher sentencing/ prison conditions to deter people.

[edit on 10/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

[edit on 10/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 06:37 AM
Yes. Once you are convicted of a crime, you should lose any human rights. If you have committed a crime, you have taken some one else's human rights.

(Prisoners would continue to have the right to legal process, IE, appeals and the like)

There should be chain gangs of criminals doing work to improve the local community.


Cleaning the verges of roads, draining ditches. Shovling snow from the roads

There should be a process for filtering out those who want to improve themselves.

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 10:41 AM
I think there's an element of diversion creeping in here.
Prisoners doing work is nothing new and It seems to me this has nothing to do with the general thrust of this thread which is a proposal to 'removal prisoner's human rights'.

I just ask people to give a little thought to this; how is deliberately choosing to create an even more brutalised society with an even more brutalised prison population actually meant to 'help' anybody?

Comfortable middle-class people might well find the various threats inherent in 'our' prison service scary (the inhumanity that the rest of us seem to pretend doesn't exist or just ignore)
but considering the parts of society where the majority of serious offenders come from those 'threats' may well be ineffective precisely because of that background and simply heaping more brutality on top IMO will not lead to better behaviour and lower rates of recidivism, just more dangerous and inhuman prisoners when they get out, eventually.


posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by JackofBlades
Recently the Sun (a paper for the less intellectual reader but still with undeniable courage) posted an that an insider reported Ian Huntley (the sick, twisted abuser and murder of Holly and Jessica) was outraged because he didn't get any chocloate... and was rewarded with a large bag of sweets.
Now its only a trivial problem, but its a good example.
Chocoloate? He should be lucky to still be alive. If he had lived in my neighbourhood the people would have probably lynched him.
This is where I have a problem. Why should prisoners get any luxury's at all when a lot of people in the UK cant afford such things. I don't have any chocolate and if I want any i have to work for it. Its coming to that stage where prison offers a better living than being on the outside. Heck I could go try to kill someone get chucked in prison, have my own bed, tv, chocolate and free education then get out in a few years ending up with more money in my bank that I started with.

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 12:23 PM
Precisely. What's the point of having a deterrent that is completely better than anything outside?

Youth jails give prisoners video game consoles, cable, internet.... when they should be putting the fear of the law into them. Confinement is a punishment, not a freaking luxury! They are treated as though they are on a residential course rather than as though they were in prison.

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 02:01 PM
Of course it doesn't help that a lot of the talk about 'Human Rights' and the HR Act is either misunderstanding (which is how come these daft tales of official-dom arise) or pure mischievous and selective nonsense (which is usually at the heart of much of the tobloid 'revelations').

A more "common sense" approach to human rights laws is needed by public bodies who sometimes misinterpret them, the Lord Chancellor is to say.
Lord Falconer has said the importance of the Human Rights Act has been "clouded by nonsense".

The Tories have said they would scrap the Act altogether claiming it is being abused by criminals.

But Lord Falconer said that if rulings do not make common sense, then the Act has been wrongly interpreted.

He will give a speech later at Manchester University, to set out a campaign to explain the Act to public rights workers.

It follows several reports of cases, where the rights of criminals appear to have been put above public safety.

These include a convicted paedophile being allowed to use a gym shared by school pupils and a suspected car thief who was served fried chicken during a 20-hour siege.

Lord Falconer told the BBC that was "absolute nonsense".

"Common sense would tell you are not entitled to food if you are running away from the police. You are not entitled to not have your photograph shown if you are a convicted murderer on the run."

He added: "What we are trying to do is to bust these myths".

posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 08:42 PM
Everybody knows that “human rights” is a bye word for “stupid laws”.
I agree with Sminkey and the Lord Chancellor that it’s a shame that the reason is because of the (sometimes) quite stupid ways human rights laws have been interpreted by our legal profession.

In order to prevent this from happening anymore shouldn’t the number one purpose of all British law be “to serve the interests of the British people”?
I know this sounds extremely obvious but the advantage of having it in law would be to enable ridiculous interpretations of the law to be put the test in the (somewhat) democratically representative trial by jury system.

P.S. There may be a shortage of jurors; but this should not entail limiting access to trial by jury. Instead people who opt for a trial by jury (in place of the magistrates) and who are found guilty by a trial by jury, should be more severely punished than if they had been tried by magistrates for the same crime. This would help separate the guilty from the innocent, besides saving time.

posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:40 PM
And to think, we ran this country without a human rights act for hundreds of years.

What are the rights that prisoners have? Looking back at this thread, how do we know what rights should be taken away?

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
And to think, we ran this country without a human rights act for hundreds of years.

What are the rights that prisoners have? Looking back at this thread, how do we know what rights should be taken away?

Now that's a point, maybe we should just scrap human rights acts and go back to how it was, but realistically i doubt it would work now and i can only see us get more progressively stupid laws to the point of criminals ending up with government paid holidays in the sun because the dark prison cells aren't good for their complexion.

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:49 PM
Makes you wonder why so many colony's revolted after reading your last two post.

What's next open flogging in front of the castle for bad little lad's

How about in any time of crisis we take away all rights of civilians, and treat it like a time of war.

I'm not really worried too much about what you say. The UK has always been more PC than any other country.

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 11:26 AM
More HR nonsense (it's coming to something when even the cops can't get it right)

Two brothers have been jailed for killing a woman who was shot dead as she held her baby niece at a christening party. Timy and Diamond Babamuboni were sentenced as juveniles despite widespread doubts about their true ages.....

....It is thought the police may have thought that under the Human Rights Act they were not able to force the brothers to undergo the tests.....

....A spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs told BBC Radio Five Live: "Nothing in the Human Rights Act prevents carrying out a dental check on a person who is suspected of carrying out a crime.

"On the contrary, the Act explicitly allows public authorities to interfere with an individual's right to privacy in the interests of public safety or for the prevention or detection of crime."

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:30 AM

In order to prevent this from happening anymore shouldn’t the number one purpose of all British law be “to serve the interests of the British people”?

Isn't that just about the whole solution in a nutshell........and yet????

I think this is also about deliberate misinterpretation of so called human rights too.

A previous poster suggested (tongue in cheek I think) we should have flogging for 'bad lads' well not so tongue in cheek I'm starting to think the only way we'll snatch back any control of the situation, which I believe is now reaching tippping point, is to bring back a healthy streak of fear of the consequences. But to be honest I'd willingly pay good money to see some of these 'bad lads' being flogged after the scummy acts they've commited, not least the most recent trash who beat a sixty one year old man unconscious on a train because he accidently caught there eye. They don't need rehabilitation, or understanding they need dealing with.

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:01 AM
Basic human rights shouldn't be denied to any prisoner, and every civilian prisoner should be entitled to all their rights to fight their detention legally. However, prison shouldn't be a Hilton with gourmet food, 400 thread count linens, and digital cable TV. Those aren't human rights, they're luxuries that make prisons less and less a real punishment.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in