Human Rights - Do they protect the criminal more than the victim? now that is the question

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.

source

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-

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.

Source and rest of story

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 10.

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 rape.

Astonishingly, at the time of the attack, Kendeh was under a supervision order for six other sex offences in the same park.

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 wrong.

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.

Please read for full story

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??

I agree with you completely except, i think you are mad at the wrong people. You should be mad at the fools who do their job so poorly that a criminal gets to walk on a technicality.

If people did their job better, criminals would go away. To take the rights out of the system leaves it open to be abused to put innocent people away or even killed.

The rights of criminals are their because it is far too easy to convict an innocent otherwise. I am mad as hell too about this, it is just the anger has to be directed at the idiots that don't do their jobs right and allow stuff like this to occur.

Like the american constitution stated... if you give up your rights for security then you dont deserve those rights.

Same for human rights...

if you have to ask if human rights is a bad thing, then well.. lets go back to slavery. shouldnt be a problem, right?

reply to post by ronishia


Well the criminal justice system isn't designed to protect you. It's designed to punish the criminal AFTER they've committed a crime.

i never asked if human rights is a bad thing, nor do i think slavery was a good thing. i asked various things to get people thinking, im basically asking when we should logically question the law in criminal cases, or even if emotion just overrules any logic one could bring to the argument, when do we say enough and put our foot down and ensure that the victims are being protected and the criminals punished. criminals daily exploit the human rights laws which is basically what this thread is about as my title states - Human Rights - Do they protect the criminal more than the victim?

in ways i cannot be angry at the exploiting criminals of the human rights act, but at the lawyers/gov etc.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by ronishia

 

Well the criminal justice system isn't designed to protect you. It's designed to punish the criminal AFTER they've committed a crime.

well actually it should be there to protect the victim as well as punish the criminal, however in a lot of cases it seems the criminal has more protection and the victim made to suffer.

I have often thought that the human rights act tends to favour the perpetrator rather than the victim. But I'm sure that there are many, many more cases where victim is favoured over the perpetrator which don't see the light of day because it doesn't make a good story.

I'm all for the idea that if you commit a crime your human rights become void. Like for example, before the law changed a few months ago, it was a crime to attack a burglar in your own house; the specific law was, you were allowed to "use reasonable force". But everyone's definition of reasonable is different.

The classic case was ten or so years ago when a farmer shot and killed a lad who was trespassing in his farm, trying to burgle his farmhouse. The farmer ended up getting sent down for life. It wasn't as if it was a one off offence, the farmer had been repeatedly burgled; and in the end he just snapped and shot the lad.

There was also the story where one guy stole a few hundred quid from his boss, who later on found out. He then frogmarched the guy down the street with a make shift sandwich board:



The thief then sued his boss making him pay £13,000 because he humiliated him

reply to post by ronishia


You know so far I have only read half your post - will carry on in a moment - but everything you say about criminals forfeiting the ability to cry human rights when things aren't all rosey in prison - is so, so true.
It infuriates me to see people commit crimes and then claim human rights - like you I agree they all deserve basic things - food, water, to be clean, etc. But the rest of it as in the cases you have shown - is garbage
The main problem - the f*****n EU - sticking their oar in and overuling what should be a decision made by our parliament and courts.
Read the link below - a quote from it is this:

The European Court of Human Rights awarded Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention centres, 14,500 euros and 7,500 euro respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case.

So not only do people not get deported for being criminals - they actually get paid money?? WTF??
EU Ruling

The simple fact is these people forfeit the rights to live in this country when commiting these acts - they should be sent back to whence they have came.
I cannot grasp this outcome - they are basically now free to live in the UK indefinitely - hopefully in a prison - but at huge cost to the taxpayer when they just do not belong here. Once they are released, they will commit more crime.

The sad fact is there are enough criminals already in this country without importing more!!??

You only have to see some of the court cases that are going through the uk courts to see that the human rights act is being abused by the wrong people. The problem with human rights act is that there is no limitations on how they reflect on the criminal as they use it to avoid or lessen the punishment that they should get.

I think that it needs more refined in that if you are convicted of breaking the law then you are only entitled to receive the basic human need requirements not a luxuary time in prison.

Maybe they should split the human rights act into two - The basic human needs act and social privilege act. The basic human needs act would see that you get the requirements such as protection from discrimination, freedom of expression (religious beliefs, etc) for example. The social privilege act could could be things like right to claim benefits, right to a family life and other things we take for granted within the social structure in society. This way you keep the basic human needs but lose your right to act indepently within society and the benefits of being in that society - basically make criminals pay for there crimes and actually be punished.

This is just a rough idea but you get the picture - protect the innocent and punish the criminal.

reply to post by Griffo


i remember reading about the farmer when it happened and imo he got a very raw deal, were as i do not condone use of excessive force i.e guns etc if i had been in that mans position im sorry but i would have protected me, my kids and my home by any means necessary,

the case of the boss frog marching the thief i found that hilarious at the time and imo he should have been applauded. if more people done that i bet their would be less crime, imo name and shame the criminals into going straight

reply to post by facchino


i couldnt agree with you more, if illegals come intot his country and commit crimes they should be deported straight away not months and years later after lavishing in too cushy jails or houses. we have enough criminals of our own to worry about.

reply to post by Traydor


not a bad idea to split the law in to to redefine it more, first and foremost as yourself said every human being has a right to basic needs being met, however, unfortunatly as in many cases, the victims rights seem to be forgotton in criminal cases. End of the day prison is meant to be a punishment, not a holiday camp, dont like the way its run??? then dont commit crimes, its very simple.

dont get me wrong the law was put in places to try and safe guard those that are wrongly convicted etc and i realize that alot of the lines have been blurred with criminals taking full advantage of the barmy EU and PC brigade. Something need to be done to ensure the victims of these crimes come first,

to often we see thief's suing people they have burgled because they injured themselves whilst committing the act or the homeowner fought back, its ridiculous.

The law is fairly technical, and tries to be black and white as possible as far as I can see. Also there has been a fair amount of research on some of this.

Originally posted by ronishia

Slopping out is the emptying of buckets of human waste when the cells are unlocked in prisons in the morning.

source

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-

Normally I would dig out a few sources etc here ... but the information shouldn't be hard to find if it interests you deeply.

Basically we worked out quite sometime ago that taking a criminal and making them live in pain and discomfort just breeds a person with mental problems who also happened to commit a crime. It didn't bring any more public saftey. People forget that prison is meant to bring about public saftey, it is not meant to bring about punishment. Therefore, whilst you might like to see someone sit in a room with their own poop it isn't going to make the world a safer place. In fact most studies I've read suggest the opposite.

Originally posted by Griffo
There was also the story where one guy stole a few hundred quid from his boss, who later on found out. He then frogmarched the guy down the street with a make shift sandwich board:[/img]

This is really a case of the law being the law. The offending person shouldn't have taken it into their own hands. If this sort of behaviour was ignored then similar cases with false positives would have to be looked on lightly. It wasn't this persons place to punish or humiliate for exactly the reasons above. It didn't assist public saftey, it was just a medieval style humiliation attempt.

I don't neccessarily agree with the harshness of the punishment, but to make 'sub sections' to this precedent or law would complicate all other cases around this.

The farmer case btw ... I believe was harsh also, but the law changes when it needs to. It's also another instance of the law being black and white and it causes problems sometimes.

Originally posted by facchino

The European Court of Human Rights awarded Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention centres, 14,500 euros and 7,500 euro respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case.

So not only do people not get deported for being criminals - they actually get paid money?? WTF??

EU Ruling

I haven't researched this indepth ... but from your quote this looks to be legal costs and expenses. This happens to anyone who wins a case generally. It's so that justice isn't just for the rich, and person who is correct etc ... isn't penalised for being right.

They likely saw very little or none of those monies. The vast majority of it would have paid their lawyers. You might think that is a large sum ... but I was involved in a copyright case this year where a person had stolen some of my work. It cost me $20, 000 just to begin the process.

I don't see how a change in this law would work ...

You are entitled to have your legal expenses covered, unless you are an icky douche?