The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
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.
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.
Human rights always seems to come into play to protect those that had little regard for the human rights of another.
The same laws that apply outside of prison should also apply in prison.
However, why should someone who has taken life, raped, stole, attacked, etc, have any human rights? Surely, by taking the human rights of others (of safety, etc) they have forfeited their own?
A grey area for me would be when considering those who are later found to have been wrongly convicted - they shouldn't be in prison in the first place - but until innocence is proven, if they appear to be the guilty party, then the justice system are playing their part to try and protect the public. That's when the human rights arguments become more difficult...
However, why should someone who has taken life, raped, stole, attacked, etc, have any human rights? Surely, by taking the human rights of others (of safety, etc) they have forfeited their own?
A grey area for me would be when considering those who are later found to have been wrongly convicted - they shouldn't be in prison in the first place - but until innocence is proven, if they appear to be the guilty party, then the justice system are playing their part to try and protect the public. That's when the human rights arguments become more difficult...
pb wrote:
> For those who have taken away other people's human rights in
> abuse, murder or other serious offences, is this right?
It’s subjective to your own personal views. Mine err on the side of the victims not the offenders. People who commit serious offences should lose all human rights. The grey area then becomes what do you class as a serious offence? Where do you draw the line?
Also I am for the death penalty. That’s not to say that 24 hours after being found guilty you are shot but I feel my taxes could be put to better use then keeping a murderer imprisoned for life. Already that comment makes me wince as I remember a case several years ago of a man eventually being released after being wrongly convicted and spending many years in prison.
Human rights have gone the same way as Political Correctness and Health and Safety though – from the sublime to the ridiculous.
This inspired by the latest Ian Huntley episode? Now my comments over his recent compensation claims are not postable on here. There is no grey area here. He is guilty of murdering 2 innocents and therefore, in my opinion, deserves no human rights at all. He is trying to claim 80K in compensation? From our taxes? And just who the *%$^&*£” hell is going to pay his legal fees? Why does he need money anyway? He got a life imprisonment sentence handed to him by our legal system^^ Oh, aye, forgot for a moment that life isn’t life anymore - I just answered my own question which is a whole different kettle of fish.
See he is a perfect example of someone who deserves the death penalty. Either that or they need to move him to a prison where someone can do a better job of ridding society of him than his last two prisons.
> For those who have taken away other people's human rights in
> abuse, murder or other serious offences, is this right?
It’s subjective to your own personal views. Mine err on the side of the victims not the offenders. People who commit serious offences should lose all human rights. The grey area then becomes what do you class as a serious offence? Where do you draw the line?
Also I am for the death penalty. That’s not to say that 24 hours after being found guilty you are shot but I feel my taxes could be put to better use then keeping a murderer imprisoned for life. Already that comment makes me wince as I remember a case several years ago of a man eventually being released after being wrongly convicted and spending many years in prison.
Human rights have gone the same way as Political Correctness and Health and Safety though – from the sublime to the ridiculous.
This inspired by the latest Ian Huntley episode? Now my comments over his recent compensation claims are not postable on here. There is no grey area here. He is guilty of murdering 2 innocents and therefore, in my opinion, deserves no human rights at all. He is trying to claim 80K in compensation? From our taxes? And just who the *%$^&*£” hell is going to pay his legal fees? Why does he need money anyway? He got a life imprisonment sentence handed to him by our legal system^^ Oh, aye, forgot for a moment that life isn’t life anymore - I just answered my own question which is a whole different kettle of fish.
See he is a perfect example of someone who deserves the death penalty. Either that or they need to move him to a prison where someone can do a better job of ridding society of him than his last two prisons.
>Ineedsleep wrote stuff.
At this point, I don't disagree with anything you've said!
At this point, I don't disagree with anything you've said!
In the natural scheme of things, nobody has a right to judge anybody else.
But by agreeing to live in our society, you must obey the rules. As pointed out already, you forfeit your own rights when you get involved with somebody elses.
But by agreeing to live in our society, you must obey the rules. As pointed out already, you forfeit your own rights when you get involved with somebody elses.
Sonic Chris wrote:
> But by agreeing to live in our society, you must obey the rules.
Be real, what are people gonna do? Live in international waters?
> But by agreeing to live in our society, you must obey the rules.
Be real, what are people gonna do? Live in international waters?
That's a good point - very few people have a choice in where they live.
However, if they want rights, they must respect the rights of others.
If the point about wanting to live in our society has anything to do with immigration then I would suggest that's another topic for debate...
However, if they want rights, they must respect the rights of others.
If the point about wanting to live in our society has anything to do with immigration then I would suggest that's another topic for debate...
I say they shouldn't have human rights. I watched a programme recently about women in jail and they mostly go in so they get the cash when they come out. It's a disgrace.
Besides the offenders have damaged other peoples' lives so why should they get to have their human rights.
Besides the offenders have damaged other peoples' lives so why should they get to have their human rights.
After forming my own views in this during a debate at work (and becoming Mr Unpopular for a good day or so) I was going to be very careful how I posted.
However, after reading Ineedsleep's post...I can't say I disagree with anything he has posted. Summed up pretty much all I needed to say!
However, after reading Ineedsleep's post...I can't say I disagree with anything he has posted. Summed up pretty much all I needed to say!
Page: