Fears violent criminals could escape justice following European Court of Human Rights ruling

Fears violent criminals could escape justice following European Court of Human Rights ruling

www.dailymail.co.uk

British judges say written evidence has been used to protect the victims of crime and includes safeguards to ensure defendants are justly treated.

Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said the ECHR judgement could see violent criminals and sex offenders being released from prison.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) hasput forward 2 very controversial rulings in the last little while. The first is the one where they demanded that all EU countries give criminals in jail the right to vote. I don't believe that if you are in jail for a violent crime then you should have any say in how the country is run as you gave that up when you committed the crime.

The second rulling is that if the criminal was not allowed to confront the victim in court (ie the victim gave written testimony) then the criminal should be set free as

a fair trial is only possible if the defendant is permitted to cross-examine victims in court.

In England written testimony is normally only used when the victim is a child or the crime was rape, in some cases of where it is feared that the victims appearance in court would put them in danger.

So is this liberalism gone too far or is it the ECHR making the newest ruling as a way to strike back at England for refusing to give prisoners the vote? On the subject of the vote it appears to me that giving criminals the vote is likely to skew the vote in favour of who ever runs on a softer crime stance.


www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by exile1981


I wouldnt mind Brussels laying the law down, if the law protects victims and villifies the guilty. But according to European law, we should all hug our convicts, while they stab, mutilate, rape and desecrate our country. I think its high time we told Europe to shove it. Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with the European Union, appart from the fact that it insists on changing the law , in already developed nations. Its one thing telling Greece to stop being such corrupt and violent bunch of nutters when it comes to thier legal system, and the treatment of prisoners, but to harrass Britain, a nation where the prisoners have it better than most people outside a prison, what we can and cannot do... that takes the cake.
Europe should only intervene in less well adjusted nations, and specificaly not nations like Britain which are civilised to the point of ineffectualism in thier manner toward thier convicts. I do not call a playstation in every cell and three meals a day a hard life. Sure, dodging the violence of other inmates is always going to be an issue, but as to how we get people into prison, and how we treat them and what thier rights are when inside... that is a matter for US not for Europe.

I can definitely understand the impetus behind the second ruling; suppose that an innocent person was being tried and convicted for a violent crime, and they didn't even get to confront their accuser. However, it definitely is risky. Real violent criminals can intimidate their victims on the stand, and justice should not be about forcing victims to relive the crimes.

It's an iffy subject and I am not sure there's a fully satisfactory solution.

reply to post by TrueBrit


So what, you want to go back to a colonialist system where one group decides who's civilized? I fully agree with both of these rulings. Half the laws in Europe are false bull# anyways. Even if you're in prison you're still a citizen. And not being allowed to confront your accuser is a clear violation of your rights.

reply to post by TrueBrit


I've been watching the way the EU treats some of the member nations and I suspect if we end up with a similar thing in north america then it will treat it's members just as poorly.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


They still get to confront them just in writting not in person. Lets be honest a rapist or a pedophile is going to do more harm meeting there victim again and bringing back the trauma then the needs of the victim should be weighted against the desires of someone who would commit those crimes.


As for the right to vote, criminals by there crimes have forfeited the rights of citizenship since they have forfeited the responsibilities that go with it.

reply to post by exile1981


Writing is worthless in court. If the accusers don't have the balls to do what they're required to, then they have no case.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

So what, you want to go back to a colonialist system where one group decides who's civilized? I fully agree with both of these rulings. Half the laws in Europe are false bull# anyways. Even if you're in prison you're still a citizen. And not being allowed to confront your accuser is a clear violation of your rights.

Colonialism hardly applies within the state from which the law is being dictated. So for example, laws that affect British citizens, in Britain itself are not the actions of colonialsim. Applying those laws to a Tasmanian, or Australian however, would be.
We know half the laws in Europe are crap, but heres the rub. In this country, it is actualy very hard to be convicted of a crime on witness statements alone. For instance, it is simply not the case, that rapists are convicted on witness testimony, no matter how delivered. They are almost invariably convicted on a combination of that testimony, and DNA evidence, fingerprints, CCTV, and other forensic methods.
Another thing. Any law which protects the criminal more than it protects the victim, is a law which should be removed from statute, and never replaced. We have far too much victim blaming in this country, and it has to end. The system of written statements is only ever used when massive psychological trauma has been caused to either a victim or a witness, or in cases where putting the victim/witness on the stand, presents a real threat to thier life. The life of a victim is worth several crap loads more to a decent persons mind, than the so called rights of the thug who makes them so fearful of death that they cannot tell what they know in a court of law.
These laws were meant, and are only used , to prevent brutal murderers, rapists, and gangsters and the like, from getting away with murder due to the fear and the power they have over people.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
reply to post by exile1981

 

Writing is worthless in court. If the accusers don't have the balls to do what they're required to, then they have no case.

You've never been victimized, have you? Put yourself into the shoes of a woman who has been raped. You've had your volition completely stolen away. This beast who had such power over you sits, grinning, in a courtroom. Your case is based on your testimony, but there he is, his eyes on you again. He's robbing you of your will again. You know that you need to go up there, you know that the strong thing is to face him -- but how can you?

You can just as easily turn that around. Imagine your ex-gf is accusing you of raping her and you're innocent... When accused of something you do have some rights for a reason.

On the right to vote, absolutely agree. It is dehumanising to take away basic rights and detrimental to democracy to start making exceptions. Where do do draw the line? Get a parking ticket and lose your right to vote? It is a return to fascism to reduce the voting base when people are being people.

On the rights to face the accusers it does get more complex with very traumatic crimes. When there is strong evidence backing the case and psychologist recommendations that confronting the accused will be detrimental to the victim, it does make a strong argument. On the surface I can see it as healing to both parties to face each other if done responsibly and very informative to the court with the body language that transpires. I would like to do a lot more study on the effects of the victims and accused before making an approval or disapproval of this ruling. At the moment I would not want to throw the option of not facing each other away, but is one that would not be used lightly.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You can just as easily turn that around. Imagine your ex-gf is accusing you of raping her and you're innocent... When accused of something you do have some rights for a reason.

What, you mean there are two sides to every coin? Like I said in my very first post in this thread? I was addressing one very insensitive ass who thought that things were just that simple.

Originally posted by exile1981
They still get to confront them just in writting not in person. Lets be honest a rapist or a pedophile is going to do more harm meeting there victim again and bringing back the trauma then the needs of the victim should be weighted against the desires of someone who would commit those crimes.

The problem being, that at this stage, the ''victim'' is only someone making allegations of the crime, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

It's impossible to reconcile the two positions of having a fair and free trial for the defendant, and protecting victims of serious crimes from going through a harrowing and traumatic experience.

I think we have to accept that we will never be able to get this process right, and we just have to try and make it as fair as possible, under the circumstances.


I don't see too much wrong with written evidence, as the argument that the defendant has the right to face their accuser in court is rather moot, given the fact that most people use a defence lawyer to act as their proxy.


Also, I think that it's fair for criminals to have the vote; they may have committed a crime, but they still are entitled to have a vote on issues, the same as the rest of us.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You can just as easily turn that around. Imagine your ex-gf is accusing you of raping her and you're innocent... When accused of something you do have some rights for a reason.

In which case there would not be all the other evidence that is needed to get a conviction.