When Should You Lose Your Human Rights?

[I1L2T3 10]

I completely agree with alisonmanic.

 

So somebody who commits a serious crime can no longer be considered human and treated as such?

 

What if it turns out later that the person convicted of the crime was innocent?

 

What if the person convicted of the crime was mentally ill?

[johncocker 10]

I think you will find that outside of the tight little club of human rights lawyers coining it at the taxpayers expense and the usual crowd who see any enemy of the West as someone to be admired,that the human rights act has been hijacked by greedy lawyers and those with axes to grind.

 

 

 

 

 

The most bizarre example of this weird morality is the Khmer Rouge; the most truly evil and genocidal governing group since Hitler - ostensibly Maoists, schooled in Paris, supported at turns by the US and China - overthrown by communist Vietnam and the USSR, and had their seat at the UN kept in exile by a predominantly Western bloc until the late eighties, long after their atrocities came to light.

Then we have Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Israel, apartheid South Africa, the Congos... South Africa, the Congos...

[Branch Out 10]

So you're saying anyone convicted of murder should be killed straight away?

 

 

Does a person who most likely did not think about another persons human rights when they purposefully murdered another deserve to have their human rights honoured?

[tinfoilhat 11]

So somebody who commits a serious crime can no longer be considered human and treated as such?

 

What if it turns out later that the person convicted of the crime was innocent?

 

What if the person convicted of the crime was mentally ill?

 

This is where I need legal advice. What is an "appeal"? Is it effectivly a retrial showing how someone didn't do it or would be better suited a a secure psychiatric unit? Or is it a case of "I did it but I feel reformed and remorse so let me out". Nobody wants to see an innocent person in jail but I don't want murderers out and about after only 8 years.

[Branch Out 10]

So somebody who commits a serious crime can no longer be considered human and treated as such?

 

What if it turns out later that the person convicted of the crime was innocent?

 

What if the person convicted of the crime was mentally ill?

 

And what if the human rights brigade battered down the courts of law rulings even more thus allowing a murderer (for example) to have their sentence shorted on a breach of human rights claim to go on an murder more innocent people (for example).

 

Surely when a person chooses (note the word chooses so I am not directly talking about the mentally ill here) to take the life of someone their own rights should be taken away.

 

By the way, I am refering to human rights here per se, not the death penalty!???

[mjw47 10]

No one should ever lose their human rights in terms of being tortured, held without trial or denied civil liberties.

 

When it comes to the perpetrators of serious crimes however, what needs to be taken into account are the human rights of the people who suffered the consequences of the crimes committed.

 

The victim who was killed or raped or had any other crime committed against them also had human rights, which the criminal violated.

 

Therefore after the fact it can't all become about the perpetrators human rights, they have of their own free will committed an act which has caused injury to an innocent person ( if the victim wasn't entirely innocent then that should be taken into consideration when sentencing) and should expect to pay the price.

 

In no way can I see how this could be considered to be a loss of human rights.

[Epic Fail 10]

Some would say that anyone who commits the murder of innocent people is mentally ill, as it's not a sane thing to do.

[Branch Out 10]

No one should ever lose their human rights in terms of being tortured, held without trial or denied civil liberties.

 

When it comes to the perpetrators of serious crimes however, what needs to be taken into account are the human rights of the people who suffered the consequences of the crimes committed.

 

The victim who was killed or raped or had any other crime committed against them also had human rights, which the criminal violated.

 

Therefore after the fact it can't all become about the perpetrators human rights, they have of their own free will committed an act which has caused injury to an innocent person ( if the victim wasn't entirely innocent then that should be taken into consideration when sentencing) and should expect to pay the price.

 

In no way can I see how this could be considered to be a loss of human rights.

 

Thank you, you worded that much better than I, yet said it just how I feel.

When I think of human rights my mind doesn't automatically switch to arguing out the rights of murderers or rapists, I think about those suffering from the actually brutality of a murderous regime, or forced to do slave labour or else they will be beaten or tortured or starved.

 

I do not care to be quite frank about the human rights or those that took the innocence or life of another. They lost that 'right' in my opinion when they commited a brutal crime.

[mjw47 10]

Some would say that anyone who commits the murder of innocent people is mentally ill, as it's not a sane thing to do.

 

Which is why they carry out psychiatric tests to establish mental competency where appropriate.

 

I don't believe in the death penalty as too many innocent people have died and would die in the future if it was reintroduced.

 

I do believe in life meaning life though, and any mental illness would only mean that incarceration would be in a secure mental unit as apposed to a high security jail.

[Epic Fail 10]

Which is why they carry out psychiatric tests to establish mental competency where appropriate.

 

I don't believe in the death penalty as too many innocent people have died and would die in the future if it was reintroduced.

 

I do believe in life meaning life though, and any mental illness would only mean that incarceration would be in a secure mental unit as apposed to a high security jail.

 

I 100% agree with you. There will be varying levels of mental illness, but either way they shouldn't be released into society.

[Ash Tray 10]

So you're saying anyone convicted of murder should be killed straight away?

That is not what Branch out posted, stop trolling.

[mjw47 10]

Thank you, you worded that much better than I, yet said it just how I feel.

When I think of human rights my mind doesn't automatically switch to arguing out the rights of murderers or rapists, I think about those suffering from the actually brutality of a murderous regime, or forced to do slave labour or else they will be beaten or tortured or starved.

 

I do not care to be quite frank about the human rights or those that took the innocence or life of another. They lost that 'right' in my opinion when they commited a brutal crime.

 

Thanks. What annoys me is that sometimes some people have a tendency to link the rights and wrongs of human rights and political correctness to exceptional cases.

Usually these situations involve some criminal, and or his lawyer 'trying it on' or somebody going for compensation, usually instances where they are abusing the laws put in place.

 

None of which should cause people to want to do away with either legislation. They are there to provide some protection for all of us, and just because unscrupulous people try to take advantage it doesn't negate the need for these laws.