I will apologize now if my thoughts on this at anytime kinda rambles away into the back woods, please bare with me
With the aftermath underway regarding the London riots, i got to thinking about a few things, not just about the riots but about criminals and such
like. All to often we read/watch/listen daily about news reports of criminals and law breakers who have committed serious crimes, only to have their
sentences reduced or thrown out because something 'breached' their human rights. That is something that really gets me irate to be honest. In my
opinion when you break the law you forefeight any rights you may have had to begin with. Dont get me wrong, the human rights act is there for a
reason, of which i do agree with the basic principles of.These basic rights of course include certain civil liberties and political rights, the most
fundamental of which is the right to life and physical safety.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
During the riots here many of the rioters/looters started bleating about their human rights being breeched i.e: their rights to hold protests, rights
of freedom of speech etc etc etc, well imo at the end of the day you forfieght your human rights the second you started destroying other peoples human
rights, the fear tho is that - as in other legal/criminal cases - the criminal will ultimately win and us poor saps who actually slog our butts off
everyday to make a living and live by the law will be punished.
Another example that annoys me, in prisons they used to go through what is called the 'slopping out' process, for those that dont know:
Slopping out is the emptying of buckets of human waste when the cells are unlocked in prisons in the morning.
Yes this is a yukky thing to have to do however to me this was part and parcel to prison life, your there because you committed a crime not for a
holiday!!! however after complaints from prisoners about their human rights being breached - an example of this-
Source and rest of story
The Scottish Executive is facing huge compensation claims after a judge ruled that "slopping out" in jails amounted to degrading treatment.
In a 100-page ruling, Lord Bonomy awarded £2,400 to a prisoner who was held at Barlinnie Jail in Glasgow.
The inmate claimed that the practice, where prisoners use buckets in their cells, breached his human rights.
The practice has been abolished in the UK, but tbh imo it should have stayed!! dont like slopping out?? dont commit crimes!!
In alot of the cases over the years i hear about it seems that the human rights law tends to protect the criminals, people who are wrong. Makes me
think about those countries with dictatorships, they do not have major crime problems. Nor do Brazilian shanty towns dominated by criminal gangs, or
cities controlled by the mafia. Most smaller criminals can get subdued by rigorous law and order. (just my opinion of course) maybe im going a bit off
topic and loony ranting away
but you get my point?
Another major case that comes to mind was the case of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the boys who murdered 2 year old James Bulger at the age of
Source to get info for above
Source for the human rights people are protesting about in the above linked case
There are still petitions and protests circulating the internet to try and kill Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, There is hate filled rage splattered
across facebook groups and other such places. The question remains on this and other cases, can 10 year olds be held 100% accountable and vilified for
the rest of their lives for this?? do they deserve what they got when they were given new ID's?? its a tough one.
another example case comes from 2007 and in the daily mail
Gabrielle Browne was a happy, successful computer manager and mother of two until the day in 2003 when she went running in her local park in South
London, was punched in the face and indecently assaulted by Mohammed Kendeh, a 16-year-old from Sierra Leone.
Gabrielle, now 42, believes it was only the strength she'd gained from training for the London Marathon which enabled her to save herself from
Astonishingly, at the time of the attack, Kendeh was under a supervision order for six other sex offences in the same park.
Please read for
You might think that a foreign-born man who had repeatedly attacked British women had forfeited his right to live in this country. You would be
Though the Home Office tried to deport Kendeh once he had served his sentence, an immigration judge overruled them.
Now, quite shamefully, a further appeal has been rejected, so Kendeh is here to stay.
Gabrielle is so upset she has waived her own precious right to anonymity.
She wants to expose the cruel farce of a judicial system that allows men like her assailant to remain in Britain.
So who was behind this decision? Step forward, Sir Henry Hodge, husband of New Labour minister Margaret Hodge.
He ruled that Kendeh couldn't be sent back to Sierra Leone because the Human Rights Act enshrines his 'right to a family life'.
What nonsense! An expert in international law tells me British judges are guilty of being far too broad in their interpretation of Article 8 of the EU
Convention on Human Rights.
Obviously the above are just cited examples there are loads more just use Google there is loads of info out there about this.
my opinion of the human rights they have weighs heavily upon the crime they've committed. It is also weighed on their beliefs and actions as they may
evolve. I would very much say it is wrong to take away the basic human rights of anyone, regardless of what they have done, there are still basic
rights they should be afforded, especially to people who have changed, and are willing to make reparations in any way they can for what they have done
(though this of course is hard to judge on the sincerity). But were as i do think everyone has basic rights, i strongly agree and think that when you
commit (esp serious offenses) crimes you forfeight your rights (sorry if this seems a bit muddled trying to type it as it comes to me
) As there
are varying degrees of law and punishment depending on the crime, there are varying degrees of human rights afforded to people depending on what they
have done, in my opinion.
An example of this is a person who has been released from prison for physical abuse on a child. Does he now have the right to live anywhere he wants
to? its a tough call and any decision has to be made within reason, for example you wouldnt place said person right next door to a school or
playground (although this has happened!!!) There are always consequences for your actions, and when your actions infringe upon the basic human rights
of others in a negative way, you should expect that your own human rights may be somewhat restricted and in placing these people in homes it would
have to be done in a way that doesn't infringe upon other peoples safety and security. if i had my way id shove em all on a desert island in the
middle of the ocean, but perhaps this is more an emotional response than a logical one.
The real question remains when do we as a society have to step in and say enough is enough? when do we say human rights laws in regards to criminality
has went overboard and stopped protecting victims and shields the criminal? can we as a society logically look at these laws in regards to criminals
and such like or does the emotional response take over and cloud our judgments?
I suppose its true that you cannot tar all cases with the same brush as each has to be looked at individually but imo it seems that in a vast majority
of the ones i have read or heard about the law seems to be going overboard and victimizing the victims, your thoughts??