Viewing Thread:
"Human Rights for Prisoners"

At present all 'offenders' have their human rights protected by European and UK law.

For those who have taken away other people's human rights in abuse, murder or other serious offences, is this right?

There are several arguements for and against which constantly crop up in these sort of discussions:

FOR Human Rights
If we act as the offender has acted then we are as bad as the offender. Likewise, a death penalty would condone killing for a murderer.

It doesn't matter if the offence is serious or not, all prisoners should be treated the same and there is always the chance that they have been wrongly convicted.

AGAINST Human Rights
If prison is not harsh enough then offenders will not have a reason to stop offending, they know that they are going to somewhere that will be comfortable and guarantee a hot meal. In fact, some may offend just to get in to prison and provide a better life.

The grey area:
The biggest grey area here is probably the mental, and to some extents the physical status of the offender. Should we look closer at where they are 'in their right mind' and then what should happen to those serious offenders who are a danger or (even more of a grey area) may later provide a danger to the public.

Ineedsleep wrote:
> There aren't that many people on death row if taken as a
> percentage of the overall prison figures. Being put on death row
> isn't a deterent and there are only so many executions carried
> out each year because of all the appeals that are filed.

It's true, it's only a fraction that are on death row. I guess my overall opinion is that I wouldn't oppose the death penalty if it was re-introduced. To be honest, it wouldn't really have any impact on my life.

Perhaps it wouldn't act as a deterrent for most criminals, but it would help keep me in line (although I don't actually cross the line in the first place).

@Chris, certainly fully support your point about life meaning life. Other than death penalty cases where it is actually happening, basic living facilities only (i.e. a room and a bucket).

I think Butch is right, I think I do sound like I am becoming more of a supervillain each day!

If what I've seen on various TV documentaries is right, it may be cheaper to pay the Thaiwanese (or is it Thailand...I may be mixing the two) governments to build some extra prisons to their standards and deport criminals to them.

For I remember seeing that they have very basic facilities, including sharing a large bucket as a toilet which they have to empty and clean themselves...

May not be that sanitary, but then, we are talking about those who didn't care about the things people normally take for granted when they took them away from others by murdering, raping, stealing, scarring and scaring for life.

I bet they're not as clean as the 'Bridget Jones Diary' prison experience either...

In regards to the death penalty:

If it was me and I was on the 'chopping block', I would actually be happier with that thought, than having to spend 50 or so years locked up, fearing a beating and god knows what else every day.

I think life in prisonment, and I do mean LIFE, would be a much better deterant than the death penalty.

I agree that life imprisonment should be what it says on the tin. How can you be forgiven for taking a person's life by being good in an iron cell for 20 years? And the thing that annoys me more than anything else is new identities!

Take the James Bulger case. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released from prison after 8 years... 8 years for murdering and mutilating a small child. They get new identities that are payed for by us. In other words, we're paying for them to come back into our society. They got alot of luxuries such as double prison wages and one of them even got his own personal trainer!

They should be locked up and treated for what they are. I'm glad they get death threats. Will save us having to pay for their deaths....

There aren't that many people on death row if taken as a percentage of the overall prison figures. Being put on death row isn't a deterent and there are only so many executions carried out each year because of all the appeals that are filed.

As you don't agree with the death penalty can we at least agree that a life sentence should mean life with no release on parole or for good behaviour?

Imprisonment for life with only basic human rights available to them.

I'm done :)

HM wrote:
> Sonic Chris wrote:
> Don't you feel people will avoid doing crimes out of fear
> rather
> than respect though?
>
> I just generally think that if anything deters a crime it can
> only be a good thing. At school, I was quiet and shy. I was kept
> in line through the fear of a detention.

So that stopped all the others too who would normally be unruly in class? Fear rarely works on those you really need to target. You just need to look at all the canings that went on in the past and how many children still acted up despite this.

Ask yourself this; if the Death Penalty works to deter people, why are there still so many people on death row?

Sonic Chris wrote:
> Don't you feel people will avoid doing crimes out of fear rather
> than respect though?

I just generally think that if anything deters a crime it can only be a good thing. At school, I was quiet and shy. I was kept in line through the fear of a detention. Similar idea. Although I would say if I was to be executed due to me talking in class I think it would be a little harsh. It would have it's uses. Still, it's interesting to see everyone's ideas.

Don't you feel people will avoid doing crimes out of fear rather than respect though? In such a modern day society, I think the death penalty is a step backwards, and you'd be surprised by how many people would be against it.

Anyway, the main line from prisons now is that prison isn't a punishment, it's rehabilitation into society. If you can't beat a prisoner, I doubt you'd be allowed to kill one.

Garin wrote:
> A room outside the law? What a novel idea. :)
>
> If you have the death penalty, naturally you have provisions for
> the lawful executions of individuals.

Think you've summed up what I meant - those natural provisions for the lawful executions are made to go with the death penalty. I'm sure Garin cottoned on to what I meant about the "room outside the law" being those provisions.

EDIT: And there will always be the argument around the death penalty. At the moment I guess we don't need it, but if it was brought back in, then there would be little opposition from me. Stay on the right side of the law and there will be no need to worry!

A room outside the law? What a novel idea. :)

If you have the death penalty, naturally you have provisions for the lawful executions of individuals.