Criminals and Human Rights

This story about a failed illegal immigrant to the UK, with a string of convictions including a driving ban, who killed an innocent young girl and has deprived her father of the most precious thing in his life - and this man has now been told he can stay in UK, rather than being deported to Iraq, because his Human Rights would be breached by doing so.
Where exactly do the powers that be consider the victims fathers human rights are in all of this? He no longer has a right to a family (as the criminal has) because it was taken from him by someone who should not have been in this country anyway, and should certainly not have been driving after being banned (as well as not possessing a UK licence)

BBC link

There are of course several other incidents like this.
Immigrant Kills pensioner

I wonder why the law is being used to protect criminals, yet the victims end up never getting the justice they want and deserve?
Interestingly David Cameron himself wrote to Mr Houston before the general election and promised the Human Rights act would be replaced with a UK Bill of Rights - to avoid this very thing happening.

Bill of Rights

Is the law too soft, because of human rights? Are judges out of touch with modern day life?

My own personal opinion is that once you have comitted a crime that has caused direct harm (physical/mental anguish) to another person, such as the case mentioned, GBH, stabbing, murder etc - you should forfeit the right to claim "human rights" if these rights in any way impacted the victim(s) of the act you performed.
People still have a right to eat 3 meals a day in prison etc, but not to have your rights overide those of a victim.

No the law in general is not too soft.

However, In some cases the relevant laws are completely out of touch and so are most QC's / Lords.

I found this out after my step son was murdered and the scum bag that done it got ten years.
This sub human can come out in less than ten years and go on to marry and have children, yet my step son can not.

What gives him the right to move on in life ?
Ditto for the failed Iraqi immigrant.

I am so glad I am not a policeman in the UK.
They do work hard to put a case together and present it to the court.
Then when the relevant low life gets ten years (or 4 months in the case of the failed immigrant), the police must get very fed up.

All of that work and for a soft punishment.
What message does this send ?

Originally posted by facchino
My own personal opinion is that once you have comitted a crime that has caused direct harm (physical/mental anguish) to another person, such as the case mentioned, GBH, stabbing, murder etc - you should forfeit the right to claim "human rights" if these rights in any way impacted the victim(s) of the act you performed.

Human rights are for EVERYONE. Not just law-abiding citizens. Accidents happen. It's tragic that this man lost his daughter, but what you seek is REVENGE, not justice. To think that someone who commits a crime should lose all human rights (and get extra punishment added after he's served his time) goes against the very idea of justice and law.

It's not all about justice, but neither should it be about revenge. The latter is self-evident.

Justice is equality and fairness. The taking of a life, according to strict justice, would result in a forfeiture of one's own life. The taking of property would result in a forfeiture of an equal amount amount of property. Yet, how does one extract justice from someone who has killed twice? How can someone forfeit their life twice? How can one be deprived of property when they have none to forfeit? How can one apply justice when the crime resulted in a loss which cannot be measured in monetary units, as in rape or torture?

Justice is meaningless in these situations.

What is meaningful is prevention of crime toward the general citizenry. That should be the focus of any penal system. Punishment is important, yes, to reinforce cause effect relationships that aid rather than damage society. But more important is the overall rehabilitation.

The problem comes when individuals are unable to be rehabilitated. Certain individuals simply will continue to commit crimes, including violent crimes, against members of society - they are beyond our ability to help. What do we do with these people? My view is we execute or exile them, permanently removing them from society. That is not revenge; it is logic. I mentioned cause-and-effect above; when someone has a better life inside a prison than outside (as is too often the case), then the relationship becomes, "If I commit a crime and do not get caught, I get the advantage of the crime with no consequences. If I do get caught, I get the advantages as well as an easier life for a period of time." In such a case, there is no incentive for anyone to follow societal or moral laws.

I do however believe that most people in prison can be helped to become socially-integrable, as long as they are given proper treatment. This treatment is far from treating them like animals; it is more about treating them with respect, yet emphasizing that violation of societal standards brings with it unpleasant consequences. Unfortunately, this does require an investment in personal attention, the one area which government has shown clearly that it is not adept in.

In a perfect world, there would be a marked difference in treatment and handling of violators based not on income or stature, but on ability to be rehabilitated. Those beyond help would be summarily executed or placed on an island prison forever segregated form the rest of society. Those who are difficult to rehabilitate would reside in the most strict prisons, given an ultimatum that they are about to choose their next residence. Those able to be rehabilitated would receive the individual help they need before released back into society. and of course, many of the more victimless laws would not even exist, but that's for another thread.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The taking of a life, according to strict justice, would result in a forfeiture of one's own life.

The man committed a crime and served time for it. The taking of the girl's life was an accident. Why should he pay with his life for having an accident? We're not talking about social justice or moral justice, but legal justice (I was anyway) .

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Perhaps I should have stated "intentional or reckless" taking of a like. My post was intended to be more general than specific to this one case. I thought that was inferred; my apologies for not being clearer.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hi

I suppose the issue I have is that maybe the law is too soft as the man served a mere 4 months despite being illegally present in the UK and also having no driving licence, and being banned on top of that.
(accident though it was he ran away and left the poor girl dying - perhaps a more timely paramedic response could have made a difference?)
I struggle to see where the justice was in the sentence he received.
Perhaps if the person in question has been dealt with properly by the legal system and actually been deported to his home country, then that poor man would still have his daughter with him today.

As for human rights - the point I was trying to make was that when people behave as "animals" and treat people with no respect, then I feel they should forego human rights that decent, honest people enjoy. I appreciate there are complexities involved in this, but the basic premise is that murderers, rapists, paedophiles should not have any standard of living beyond a basic existence, and not have other things available to them such as the vote (why should these type of people have any say in who is elected for example)

Originally posted by facchino
I suppose the issue I have is that maybe the law is too soft as the man served a mere 4 months despite being illegally present in the UK and also having no driving licence, and being banned on top of that.

I absolutely agree that 4 months is a puny sentence for someone in that position. But the legal system determined his payment and he paid it. They may have been wrong in our estimation, but he paid his dues as determined by the legal system, so I can't see making him pay further.

Perhaps if the person in question has been dealt with properly by the legal system and actually been deported to his home country, then that poor man would still have his daughter with him today.

IMO, that's a dangerous place to go. Someone else could have hit her, this man could have hit someone else, or any number of things may have happened. We just can't say. I try to stay away from that kind of prediction.

As for human rights - the point I was trying to make was that when people behave as "animals" and treat people with no respect, then I feel they should forego human rights that decent, honest people enjoy.

I understand that you fell this way, but I do not. I'm from the US and here, human beings are human beings and no matter WHAT they have done, they don't forgo their human rights. That's why there are laws against cruel and unusual punishment. From our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unalienable means impossible to take away or give up. (Even if they act like complete dildos)

(why should these type of people have any say in who is elected for example)

Because they are human beings and have unalienable rights. If we, the majority, were to choose which law abiding citizens get rights and which ones don't, we'd have a complete mess on our hands (and I mean even worse than it is).

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Then we are violating their right to liberty and intervene "pursuit of happiness" (whatever applies to their twisted minds as happiness) when we put them in jails?

I do believe that it is not referred to hard criminals (intentional murderers, rapists and similar piece of #) because they are not MEN. Their category is one - worse than animal. The second they do a reckless crime they must lose all human rights and be exterminated by any means. The last thing we should want is to give them a chance to breed.

Originally posted by Pitons
The second they do a reckless crime they must lose all human rights and be exterminated by any means.

Jesus... that's cold-blooded. Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you, other than I disagree with you strongly.

And saying that murderers and rapists are 'worse than animal' doesn't really resonate with me because I don't think ANY of us humans are as honorable, honest, loyal, and therefore truly worthy of our respect, as animals are.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Because they are human beings and have unalienable rights.

Three points to make here:

• 'Inalienable' means they cannot be taken away by anyone, but it does not mean they cannot be forfeited. If it did, then every prisoner, every murderer, rapist, robber would have to be released because they have an inalienable right to liberty. That would spell chaos... imagine if anyone could commit any crime they wished and no one was able to imprison or destroy them because of their inalienable rights. There would be no society such as we have now. There would be no use in having laws of any kind. Anyone could be killed for any reason at any time by anyone, because there would be no reason for them not to do so.
  
  As long as we have laws that prescribe the punishment before the criminal act is performed, then the law is not removing their inalienable rights... they are forfeiting their rights. That's a huge difference.
  
  
• I still have not heard your position on how the girl who was killed had her rights violated. Did she not have the same inalienable right to life and liberty as the one who killed her? Who speaks for her?
  
  
• That quote was in response to a question about why people who commit crimes can vote... that would be because voting is not an inalienable right. Voting is a right established by a society. One may lose the right to vote by committing a felony or may never have it due to not being a full member of the governed society in question. Just because you happen to be somewhere when a vote is being taken does not grant you the automatic right to participate in that vote.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Three points to make here:

• 'Inalienable' means they cannot be taken away by anyone, but it does not mean they cannot be forfeited.

www.merriam-webster.com...

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred : inalienable rights

First, the criminal by his antisocial conduct and by his violation of a just law has forfeited not the right, but the temporary exercise of it. His incarceration in prison does not completely remove his freedom of action, but it severely limits the exercise of that freedom for the period of imprisonment.

The right remains in existence both during imprisonment and after release from prison. If the prison warden attempted to make the prisoner his personal slave, that would be an act of injustice on his part, because enslavement would be a violation of the human right to the status of a free man. This human right belongs to those in a prison as well as those outside its walls.

Source

I still have not heard your position on how the girl who was killed had her rights violated. Did she not have the same inalienable right to life and liberty as the one who killed her?

Absolutely. I don't know why he was only jailed for 4 months and I have said that I disagree with his sentence. Strongly. I think he should have been charged with manslaughter and be in prison, especially under the circumstances. And yes, he should be deported. He was there illegally. I'm sorry I didn't make my position on that clear enough.

People's lives are lost in accidents. It's a sad part of life. I'm not trying to belittle her loss of life. My point is that the man is still entitled to human rights, no matter how despicable he is or what he's done.

That quote was in response to a question about why people who commit crimes can vote...

Ah, I see now. Sorry about that. Prisoners can't vote anyway, can they? I don't know. But they still have human rights.

...i didnt see where ibrahim is referred to as an illegal immigrant - except in the op by facchino and in a later post by the same...

...the article referred to ibrahim as "an asylum seeker" and the uk authorities knew he was in the uk, since he had pleaded his case for asylum twice before this last time...

...calling him an illegal immigrant suggests bias...

...according to the article posted in the op - ibrahim was charged with driving without a license and failing to stop after an accident... i saw in another article that he was also charged with failing to report an accident... he served four months for those violations and that seems adequate for those violations...

...ibrahim was NOT charged with vehicular manslaughter... why?... without seeing the documentation, i can only suppose that there was not sufficient evidence...

...but, facchino, dont give up hope of pursuing revenge for one while promoting injustice for another because the latest ruling could be overturned, per the article below...

www.metro.co.uk...

First, he's not an illegal immigrant. Second, as a father, that has a daughter studying in the UK, I don't see the relevance of this post, aside from the latent racism, in it contained.

Let me see if I got your "logic" right. If a British Subject kills my daughter, I should feel OK, but if an Immigrant kills my daughter, my Human Rights have been violated.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

But the right to life is forfeited every day by individuals who commit suicide. The right to liberty was forfeited as a routine matter long after the Declaration of Liberty, for a specified period of time, known as Indentured Servitude. Indeed, one could make the argument that every time someone reports to a job they are freely exchanging their right of liberty for a specified period of time for pay.

As to a warden making a prisoner his personal slave, yes that is wrong, but not because he is violating the prisoner's right to liberty; that right is already forfeited. It was forfeited not to the warden, but to the state. The warden, being an individual, cannot usurp the right to freedom by the inmate, because it is held by the state.

These are old arguments, typically presented by those who adamantly oppose capital punishment. They sound good on the surface, until one understands that is not possible to make the right to life actually inalienable by the person in whom it is vested. Under a capitalistic society, neither is it possible to do so with the right to liberty.

I do not argue that the state (or any institution) should be able to remove a person's rights, only that the person themselves, by their actions in the face of specified consequences, can do so. Simple logic supports this. If a person decides of their own free will to jump in front of an oncoming train, they have forfeited their right to life. The train is not to blame; the train did not take the person's inalienable right to life, because the train is incapable of making the decision to do so. In the same manner, if an individual commits a crime, they are forfeiting their inalienable rights as specified in the legal code.

Now, one can argue what portion of these rights should society consider forfeited as a result of crimes. Personally I believe that as much as practical one should forfeit as much as they took.

TheRedneck

reply to post by CerBeRus666


Don't rollout the racism card - that's pathetic. It implies I cannot criticise anyone of another race/culture without it being racist. This issue is about this case in particular. If it were a UK citizen who had performed the same string of offences prior to causing a death the same principal applies - he should have been dealt with more fully by the legal system so that he did not have the opportunity to cause the accident in the first place.

The fact is this man should not have been in this country and therefore this accident should never have happened.

Asylum seeker/illegal immigrant - same thing? Until some has been granted right to stay here they are not here legally.

You also say he is not an illegal immigrant then refer to an immigrant in your second paragraph? Which one is he in your eyes?
All the information I read has him as a failed asylum seeker - but yet he hadn't failed because he was still here.
Read the "previous offences" part and see that the extent of his parenting has been questioned also.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


There's still hope yet then for the father.

Yes it seems odd that the driver was never charged with death by dangerous driving or something along those lines? The girl was under the wheels of the car, which he had left his wallet and phone in when he ran off so the evidence was certainly there!
There were several offences prior to this one noted halfway down this article:
Previous offences

I just would like to see the legal people in this country apply laws properly. If this man had been driving illegally before this incident, then surely he should have been charged and deported immediately.

There are more than enough criminals and idiots already in this country without importing more!!! we seem to have a hard enough time coping with our own criminals.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


"Jesus... that's cold-blooded. Sorry, I really don't know what to say to you, other than I disagree with you strongly.

And saying that murderers and rapists are 'worse than animal' doesn't really resonate with me because I don't think ANY of us humans are as honorable, honest, loyal, and therefore truly worthy of our respect, as animals are."

You mean for example polar bears or hyenas who eat their children? Oh come on - animals are not always as honorable as you would like to think. They have their own reasons and they do some # too.

Maybe I sound like a cold blooded mother***, but I do believe it is fair AND HUMAN to not let them breed their kind. 80 % of who the kid will be in the future is determined by genetics (if it would be otherwise it would be against Mother Nature and make zero sense). The kid is not guilty he has f*cked up genes. Parents are.So it's very human to not let the future idiot be born so he would not suffer himself. Because of lack of brains and negative strains he will do s hit. And he's not guilty because he... just doesn't have brains to do something not negative. So such a kind must be stopped.

If humanity want to evolve - the decent ones have to stop the spoilt ones.

Sorry, humanists, liberalists and such for stating the obvious truth.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...i didnt see where ibrahim is referred to as an illegal immigrant - except in the op by facchino and in a later post by the same...

...the article referred to ibrahim as "an asylum seeker" and the uk authorities knew he was in the uk, since he had pleaded his case for asylum twice before this last time...

Thanks for pointing this out. I missed that. In that case, I take back that he should be deported. And I agree we don't have enough information to make further judgments or a charge of manslaughter. We simply don't have all the information.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But the right to life is forfeited every day by individuals who commit suicide.

The RIGHT is not forfeited. The EXERCISE of the right is forfeited. They don't remove the right, they choose not to exercise it. Just because I don't participate in the local protest doesn't mean I have forfeited my right to protest. The right remains.

Simple logic supports this. If a person decides of their own free will to jump in front of an oncoming train, they have forfeited their right to life.

So, if I decide, of my own free will, to keep my mouth shut, I have forfeited my right to free speech? No. Sorry, I haven't forfeited any rights. I have forfeited the choice to exercise it. The right is still intact and I can use it when I CHOOSE to exercise it.

If I don't have a religion, I haven't forfeited my RIGHT to it.
If I do things that make me miserable, I haven't forfeited my RIGHT to happiness.
If I willingly lock myself up, I haven't forfeited my RIGHT to liberty, I have chosen not to exercise it.

The RIGHT remains.

Originally posted by facchino
Asylum seeker/illegal immigrant - same thing? Until some has been granted right to stay here they are not here legally.

Asylum Seekers are NOT illegal

But why is it illegal? It isn't really; they are allowed to enter the Uk under the 1951 Convention on Refugees. Everyone has the right to apply for asylum in the Uk. The immigrants are permitted to stay in the Uk until a final decision is made on whether they are allowed to stay or not.