raoul moat is caught

Flash In The Pan said:
No, none of those - at the point where it is proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you carried out the crime in question. In the past I'm sure many "innocent" people (Paddy Meehan springs to mind) have been jailed for crimes they did not commit, however DNA evidence is far enough advanced nowadays whereby the likelihood of guilt can be proven to such level that your points don't, imho, really stand up to close scrutiny.


You also seem to be overlooking the human rights of the victim.

Who stands up for them?
Click to expand...

DNA evidence is not incontrovertible. In rape cases, where it is often the word of one person against another regarding consent and both agree that intercourse took place, DNA evidence is irrelevant. Plenty of beyond reasonable doubt convictions have been overturned, often years later. Have you heard of the Birmingham six, or the Guilford four?

So someone is convicted and stripped of their human rights (which include things like the right not to be tortured, which I assume you know having read the legislation you are commenting on). After 20 years it is discovered that the conviction is flawed and overturned. How do you compensate them for twenty years of inhumane treatment? What if they are too dead due to inhumane treatment to be compensated? The extreme cases must be considered, because they are where a law will be tested to its limits.

Human rights are for humans.

The entire criminal justice and police system and the weight of almost 800 years of statute law is there to protect the rights of the victim, indeed to try to prevent people from becoming victims in the first place
 
Would you call Ian Huntley a human? Tell me what human rights he deserves... Or the guy who killed Sarah Payne...

Criminals should have basic human rights, like food, water, shelter, not being tortured, but not a lot more. There was a case on local news where a prisoner had to get a taxi to take him 200 yards or so to court as it would have been against his human rights to be seen handcuffed to a police officer... its those sort of silly things that make people ask whether they should have them!

I dont think anyone here is advocating torture etc... but (especially for violence, murder, rape) you should lose some human rights - what about the victims human rights of not being murdered or raped, or the rights of the family.

God forbid, if anyones child was a victim of someone like Huntley, would really be happy seeing them in a comfy cell, winning damages because he slipped in a shower?
 
at the end of the day the justice system gets it right more than it gets it wrong. What percentage of murder and rape cases are incorrectly prosecuted. Quite frankly I would rather some innocents lose their human rights wrongly than ALL guilty murderers be given luxuries.

For the same reason if I were ever a lawyer I would be a prosecutor and not a defense lawyer. Reason being I could live with myself much more easily putting innocent people in jail than defending guilty people and allowing murderers and rapists back into society. Neither are are good result but one is a lesser evil than the other.
 
joescrivens said:
I could live with myself much more easily putting innocent people in jail than defending guilty people and allowing murderers and rapists back into society. Neither are are good result but one is a lesser evil than the other.
Click to expand...

What's your opinion of, say, speed cameras?
 
There seems to be serious misconceptions as to what Human Rights entitles the subject. A comfy cell and playstation are not human rights.

You can read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights here, if you have the time and want to contribute factually to the discussion.
 
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
 
photon said:
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Click to expand...

As a prisoner in the UK however, you are entitled only to a stripped down version of the UDHR. It is up to the State what constraints they put on your human rights depending on the situation.

The UDHR is not to blame for a prisoner getting a playstation.
 
I am sure 'Human Rights' was quoted when some (cant remember nationality) people hijacked a plane and landed at Stansted, and they were allowed to stay. Maybe it is quoted too often, and incorrectly, but somewhere something needs to be done.

To repeat a question I made earlier... do you think the really serious offenders (Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Ian Huntley come to mind) who 200% guilty of sick crimes should have any rights whatsoever. Or will we see todays ruling that says Sutcliffe will never leave prison as a 'human rights' issue?
 
onomatopoeia said:
Have you heard of the Birmingham six, or the Guilford four?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are aware of when those occurred, aren't you, ie, pre-DNA evidence times....

So someone is convicted and stripped of their human rights (which include things like the right not to be tortured, which I assume you know having read the legislation you are commenting on). After 20 years it is discovered that the conviction is flawed and overturned. How do you compensate them for twenty years of inhumane treatment? What if they are too dead due to inhumane treatment to be compensated? The extreme cases must be considered, because they are where a law will be tested to its limits.

Human rights are for humans.
Click to expand...

Is there really a lot of torture in British jails? Can you really be "too dead?"

I agree that there will always be miscarriages of justice (as you would know, if you'd read my previous posts), however this shouldn't mean that the rights of convicted criminals should take precedence over those of law-abiding members of the community.
 
joescrivens said:
how is that relevant to this discussion?
Click to expand...

Traffic policing is an example where, in the past, it could've been more effective for offenders to be given harsh punishments, to counteract the low likelihood of getting caught.

You were proposing that it'd be OK for some innocent people to be convicted for heinous crimes, to make sure the greater population is protected. Well, speed cameras make it more likely that actual offenders are convicted, and are an easy example of when many people feel they have been over-punished yet overlook the reality and the greater good for society.

In the wider context, illness can be the root cause of criminal behaviour. Should the unwell be punished or protected until cured? http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vision-videos/david-eagleman-21-april-2009
 
photon said:
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Click to expand...


Hawd oan and we'll all chip in and buy Peter Sutcliffe a Placido Domingo cd then...
 
photon said:
Traffic policing is an example where, in the past, it could've been more effective for offenders to be given harsh punishments, to counteract the low likelihood of getting caught.

You were proposing that it'd be OK for some innocent people to be convicted for heinous crimes, to make sure the greater population is protected. Well, speed cameras make it more likely that actual offenders are convicted, and are an easy example of when many people feel they have been over-punished yet overlook the reality and the greater good for society.

In the wider context, illness can be the root cause of criminal behaviour. Should the unwell be punished or protected until cured? http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vision-videos/david-eagleman-21-april-2009
Click to expand...

Speeding and rape are hardly the same. Speed cameras are there to raise money, end of. Is there anyone who has never broken the speed limit? No, but very few of us have raped or killed.

If illness is the cause, we public have the right to be protected too. If they will commit crime they should not be allowed to commit more.
 
cambsno said:
Speeding and rape are hardly the same.
Click to expand...

Granted, but the seriousness in which rape is held has developed quite recently. There are plenty of examples when "was she asking for it" has been discussed in the Press and I recall a TV programme when I was kid when old boys interviewed on the street said they thought women enjoyed it. British troops raped French women during WWII. Ordinary Germans became Nazis. If you became the Invisible Man, what would you get up to? :naughty: :nono:

cambsno said:
Speed cameras are there to raise money, end of.
Click to expand...

Do you want people using your neighbourhood as a rat-run?

cambsno said:
Is there anyone who has never broken the speed limit? No, but very few of us have raped or killed.
Click to expand...

And Joe was saying it was OK for some of us to be sacrificed for the safety of the rest. Photographers near kids perhaps, you know, just in case?

cambsno said:
If illness is the cause, we public have the right to be protected too. If they will commit crime they should not be allowed to commit more.
Click to expand...

Yup, but I hope you've watched at least part of the linked video and understand that tumors for example can change people's behaviour. Look at what hormones can do to half the population every few weeks :bat:
 
photon said:
Traffic policing is an example where, in the past, it could've been more effective for offenders to be given harsh punishments, to counteract the low likelihood of getting caught.

You were proposing that it'd be OK for some innocent people to be convicted for heinous crimes, to make sure the greater population is protected. Well, speed cameras make it more likely that actual offenders are convicted, and are an easy example of when many people feel they have been over-punished yet overlook the reality and the greater good for society.

In the wider context, illness can be the root cause of criminal behaviour. Should the unwell be punished or protected until cured? http://www.thersa.org/events/vision/vision-videos/david-eagleman-21-april-2009
Click to expand...

you are comparing rape and speeding, you just made a total mockery of your argument. :shrug:
 
Speeding was simply used as a current example of higher conviction rates and whether they are seen as fair. Can't you imagine the public outcry if Judge Joe was bunging innocent peeps in gaol just to be double-sure of protecting the rest of us?
 
Because there would then be 10m people inside at any one point!!!

Speeding is an easy way to raise £££. In the majority of cases, it is not dangerous and often when it is a cause of accidents, there is also DD, or carelessness as well. Doing 65mph in fog and rain on a busy road is legal, doing 80mph on an empty road on a clear day is illegal, so speeding is not necessarily bad.

Do you want people using your neighbourhood as a rat-run?
Click to expand...

Happy to, its a dead end! Speed cameras often cause MORE accidents with people suddenly braking, and may distract attention away from other cars/people.

Photographers near kids perhaps, you know, just in case?
Click to expand...
You ban known peados from being near kids, yes. We are talking about people convicted of an offence. 99.9% of Joe Public is normal, and lets face it, would a p**** really want a pic of a boy in shorts and a t shirt in the park? Surely they would want him naked?

Maybe you had better ban the Next catalogue too, as they have pics of kids in!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top