[WOMBAI]

Originally Posted by angus58

Somehow this post has turned into a debate on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty, so I'm just going to return to the topic - are people entitled to retain their human rights once they commit a crime?

I think it depends on the crime!

[arista]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

I think it depends on the crime!

Yes but once in My Castle
they are under my Rules
they have broken in and will be attacked.


In America
California they have good warning signs
it says 'Armed Response'

And I was out there for some months
so I know have the same Policy
but without the Warning. (As it is not legal here)


Life In The City.

[Twilight]

I agree with Chels and Vicky tbh

[ILoveTRW]

kill em all

[Twilight]

Yeah imo rapist are sick ****ers, shoplifters are just stupid

[InOne]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

Also, if we cant bring back the death penalty, life should MEAN life, not 8 years or whatever it is they serve.

I think a good thing would be to dump them all together on an island somewhere...let them get on with it. That way, it doesnt cost the tax payer, and we dont have blood on our hands Sorted.

We can't do that with Australia anymore

[Angus]

Originally Posted by InOne

We can't do that with Australia anymore

Lol

[InOne]

Originally Posted by angus58

Lol

Look how well that turned out, they get 8 months of Sun and we get pissed on all year round!!!

[Angus]

Originally Posted by InOne

Look how well that turned out, they get 8 months of Sun and we get pissed on all year round!!!

Ain't that the truth!

[Jack_]

Life should be life, that's for certain.

What about the death penalty for absolutely any crime, as long as there's one hudred percent proof that the person(s) committed it? The fear of the consequence for most people would be enough to steer them away from the crime, surely?

I guess it's too easy to be like that though, lots of grey areas.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Life should be life, that's for certain.

What about the death penalty for absolutely any crime, as long as there's one hudred percent proof that the person(s) committed it? The fear of the consequence for most people would be enough to steer them away from the crime, surely?

I guess it's too easy to be like that though, lots of grey areas.

Nah it wouldn't. People don't think like that, especially at the time of commiting the crime.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by InOne

Nah it wouldn't. People don't think like that, especially at the time of commiting the crime.

Hm, okay, fair enough.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Hm, okay, fair enough.

Like that is why so many criminals are caught and re-offend, because they don't learn from their mistakes. I think the amount of people on Americas death row show the hardended criminals are not too bothered about death.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

Again, though...someone could be caught shoplifting, but they may be shoplifting to feed their family or something. What would happen then? Still the death penalty?

Sorry for using shoplifting all the time, its just the least serious crime I can think of

If they need food then they need to seek help from somewhere, not commit crimes...

Again though, lots of grey areas I guess.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

Yeah...its not always that easy to get help though.

Plus, I think the death penalty for crimes such as that...and say fighting, or being drunk and disorderly, dont warrant the same punishment as serious assaults/murder etc.

I think any type of assault warrants a serious punishment really.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

See, this is where the law fecks up.

I'l use an example of mine.

I was out one night, some girl jumped me for no reason, so i kicked the feck out of her. Next thing, IM locked up for the night, just because she was worse off then me.

I very nearly got done for assault...and she got nothing.

This is what I hate, and I think the only way you'd stop this would be to not punish anyone without complete proof [witnesses, CCTV etc]. The person that attempts the assault, is the one to blame.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

Well...you would think so.

But according to the law the person who 'wins' the fight seems to be the criminal. Or it seems that way anyway.

There were loads of witnesses who said I didnt start it...part of the reason I detest police.

Policing definitely needs sorting out, that's for sure.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Policing definitely needs sorting out, that's for sure.

Typical example of political correctness gone mad - apparently you're not supposed to defend yourself in any way since it might infringe the attacker's human rights to kick the crap out of you

[Shasown]

If you used more force than necessary to defend yourself, then you are guilty of assault.

Hang her!!

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by VickyJ

More force than necessary

Well...sue me. Dont jump me in future...simples

PMSL be careful what you wish for Vicky, she may yet do that, and she will probably win.

I mean you have admitted just now how violent you are.

[PaulyJ]

You can't do that Poster, Human rights must apply to all humans, else they become non human in the brain of society, as in peodophiles, and rapist's and to a degree terrorist's. They become animals, and thus outside the realms of understanding, and reasoning. If you extend that to ALL criminals, even the girl who shop lifted to feed her heroin habit which she gained because her BF wanted a partner in misery, and she was to weak, foolish or what have you, to say no, then you are saying once she is convicted she forfits the right to have a decent level of treatment in the prison system. The prison service will soon figure out they can save a heap of cash buy sticking 10 women in a cell currently serving 2, the food budget could be slashed by serving tripe 7 days a week. If your intention is to release this girl one day then she would surely be a hollow loveless, careless person, and she would bring that back into society.

What about Stefen Kishcow, wrongly Convicted of a Child murder, no human right's means he would not of had a right of appeal, and would of died in jail, an innocent man, and his precious story would of not been told, faith in a "sometimes floored" system assured, 10 years of that, and their would be no such thing as a innocent man in jail, because the only way we know of these things is because he exercised his Human rights, and told his story.

I do realise that there would be positive's to come from your suggestion, such as a reduction in crime, but as all things it is a balancing act, and i fear you have fallen off with this suggestion.

I am 100% sure that if this was the Western Norm then Guantanimo, The Holocost, Ruwanda, Serbia would not be such big deals, as all these cases envolve your very suggestion, if all the Jews we're criminals, rather than Jews could you of lived with their fate?

I would wish to resign from the human race and find an island somewhere and curl up into a ball and die.

I was locked up for 7 days for non payment of council tax, and prison is not the holiday camp people think it is.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by PaulyJ

You can't do that Poster, Human rights must apply to all humans, else they become non human in the brain of society, as in peodophiles, and rapist's and to a degree terrorist's. They become animals, and thus outside the realms of understanding, and reasoning. If you extend that to ALL criminals, even the girl who shop lifted to feed her heroin habit which she gained because her BF wanted a partner in misery, and she was to weak, foolish or what have you, to say no, then you are saying once she is convicted she forfits the right to have a decent level of treatment in the prison system. The prison service will soon figure out they can save a heap of cash buy sticking 10 women in a cell currently serving 2, the food budget could be slashed by serving tripe 7 days a week. If your intention is to release this girl one day then she would surely be a hollow loveless, careless person, and she would bring that back into society.

What about Stefen Kishcow, wrongly Convicted of a Child murder, no human right's means he would not of had a right of appeal, and would of died in jail, an innocent man, and his precious story would of not been told, faith in a "sometimes floored" system assured, 10 years of that, and their would be no such thing as a innocent man in jail, because the only way we know of these things is because he exercised his Human rights, and told his story.

I do realise that there would be positive's to come from your suggestion, such as a reduction in crime, but as all things it is a balancing act, and i fear you have fallen off with this suggestion.

I am 100% sure that if this was the Western Norm then Guantanimo, The Holocost, Ruwanda, Serbia would not be such big deals, as all these cases envolve your very suggestion, if all the Jews we're criminals, rather than Jews could you of lived with their fate?

I would wish to resign from the human race and find an island somewhere and curl up into a ball and die.

I was locked up for 7 days for non payment of council tax, and prison is not the holiday camp people think it is.

Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

[PaulyJ]

Originally Posted by angus58

Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by PaulyJ

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

Firstly, you quote only the first part of my original post - I go on to say:Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens"
My point is that the situation at present is all about RIGHTS with no corresponding RESPONSIBILITIES.

I also said:" I agree there should be a sliding scale depending on the severity of the crime, and most importantly, the human rights of the VICTIM should always take precedence over human rights of the criminal."

The ability to appeal a conviction has been part of the English Justice System
for hundreds of years, what I object to is the additional rights afforded in Human Rights legislation that often fly in the face of commonsense and logic.
Certain categories of crime are beyond redemption and the suggestion that rehabilitation is possible is laughable.

I don't see where I have said anywhere that all criminals should be treated inhumanely. What I am suggesting is that prison should offer basic sustenance, shelter and medical care, with no other luxuries and amenities. Feed them, water them, shelter them and treat them if ill and that's IT.
Your experience of prison was not nice - well it's not meant to be, is it?

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

It sounds like you've taken a very naive worldview. The final solution wasn't a closely guarded secret in Germany. It was happening under the Germans' noses and it is often human nature to deceive ourselves and justify the most awful things, so not only did the Germans share the moral responsibility of the actions of their leadership, they were doing what any other country would have done in the same situation. Society is always going to fall prey to evil if there are no laws to teach people otherwise. I urge you to take a long hard look at our history if you think human beings are naturally good. A law can only mean something if we can apply it to everybody including ourselves. It is thus with taking the life of another human being. You have to ask yourself that if a truly dangerous, malicious and evil individual were locked away from society, how does revenge make any sense? I can tell you what doesn't make sense. For a society to tell a criminal 'don't do as I do, do as I say'.

I'm sorry to hear you think human rights laws are unworkable in practice. Could you elaborate further on why you think some people's human rights are invasive of others? I can't say I agree.