Should a person lose their protection under the Human Rights Act the moment they commit a crime?

Question

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?

As someone quite rightly points out, each defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Clearly it would be wrong to withdraw any rights unless until a conviction has been made. Therefore the question should really be, should aperson lose their protection under the Human Rights Act the moment they are convicted of a crime?

Answer 1

In my opinion if you commit a crime, then I feel that you should forfeit your basic human rights... the only right you should have is a right to legal representation and basic living requirements, sanitation, water, staple food diet.

I'm getting sick of hearing all these liberals saying how we should protect the human rights of these people... what about the human rights of their victims, their rights to be safe in their own home or walking down the street.

I don't know what this country is coming to.... it's not my imagination, but since labour got in, the country has spirralled downward.

I don't feel safe in my home or outside it, why should I feel like this, don't I have human rights too?

And what about these disruptive kids that get excluded from school, apparantely its their human right to be in school... what about other children's human rights to have an education that is not disrupted by these young hooligans to be.

Human rights do not exist for the majority of good and law abiding citizens but for the minority few.

Long live the liberals eh?

Answer 2

Criminals should not loose their protection under the Human Rights Act. I get frustrated reading about the cases you mention and similar ones but to withdraw someone HR protection is not the answer. We need to get smarter with the balance between victim and criminal. At times the victim needs greater protection.

I cannot remember whether the hijackers went to prison but they should have. Once they have went to prison and served their time they should be deported. If no country takes them then they should be held in custody until it is cleared up.

We should not pay the legal aid costs for the prisoner who wants hard core porn.

If these suggestions go against the HR act then we need to change it both at home and at the European level.

Answer 3

yes... If people choose not to respect others human rights then why should they be allowed to live with those rights themselves.

They've proven already by committing a crime that they do not believe in, or respect, the rights of others, or the system of rights that we live by.

With an ever increasing criminal population in this country we need to approach the subject of criminal punishment with new ideas and methods. Some of these may be uncomfortable or even unsettling... but if crime is not stemmed then it will lead to chaos and mass disorder.

As a civilised society we need to act to protect the rights of the civilised from the actions of the animalistic.

Answer 4

No, but it is difficult to balance everyones' rights. My right to do something can easily impinge on anothers right not to be exposed to whatever I'm free to do...
The Human Right's Act is 'young', unfortunately the law moves slowly. Eventually a judge will have made final decisions on all these contentious points but that is many years away.
Common sense should come into a lot of these but that is not the same as bending politically to popular public demands. We rarely know all the facts, 'The Sun' has a place in expressing opinion but it should not dictate the law.

Answer 5

No. The HRA is there to protect the rights of every citizen. This includes protecting criminals or other individuals from being 'fitted up' for crimes they haven't committed and from sentences which are overly harsh. The way those rights are applied may sometimes need adjusted a little, but the cases you cite are mostly exaggerated by the right-wing, anti-Europe media.

You should never be willing to remove rights from anyone. They've been hard fought for and YOU may need them one day.

Answer 6

if a person is convicted,then they should have no rights at all,what about the rights of there victims,they had there rights invaded when they became the victim,so why should the criminal have there rights.once in prison the only rights they should have is food,bed,toiletries,and exercise.and work.all criminals commiting a sexual assaults should be dump on an island together and let to fend for them selfs away from civlisation.

Answer 7

Under the U.S. system of justice, an "accused" person has not committed a crime until found guilty by a jury.
So "...the moment they committ a crime" would require a complete change to the "Bill of Rights"
Although I, too, am angered by criminals (adjudged so by a jury)
I am dead-set against such a radical Constitutional change

Answer 8

i absoloutley agree i live in an area rife with crime, they have no remorse and brag about what they get in prison,one guy come home from prison with a tan from the sunbeds, how can you possibly justify this?? taxpayers money should not be wasted on criminals but more put into education and healthcare (not drug addicts though) i work for what i get and these people would have more respect if they were to do the same

Answer 9

A person should not automatically lose these rights.

Some people are beyond rehabillitation. Everyone knows someone, espescially when you were a kid, that was just bad and was never, ever, going to make any sort of positive contribution to the world.

It may not be their fault, blame the parents, but the masses should not have to put up with these people.

Take them out the gene pool.

Answer 10

I reckon they should lose that protection, especiall paedophiles and terrorists.
And why should they not have to slop out, and then they get TV as well. I think they should have the blandest diet, no cigarettes, TV or radio, and have to slop out their buckets instead of having access to toilets. I would also like to give the EU bozos that came up with the Human Rights Act a good kicking.