We've seen hijackers given asylum, criminals given cigarettes and a KFC after throwing bricks at police from a roof, police refusing to chase a thief who stole a bike without wearing a helmet in case the thief fell, and even a prisoner attempting to sue the police for not allowing him hard-core adult material in his prison cell - all paid for by the taxpayer and brought to public attention by the Human Rights Act.
The balance of rights between victim and criminal is an issue that's been closely scrutinised in the media recently, with the above examples just a few of the stories coming to light.
I agree that irrespetctive of the crime comitted, criminals should be protected from torture and mal-treatment from authorities in this country, but should they be so looked after that it almost becomes an incentive to commit the crime?
When an individual breaks the UK law, should they not lose their automatic right to protection under this act? Or is this a step too far?
2006-07-05
03:30:24
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous