I know America is all about Human Rights. Everyone gets a fair trial….but I still feel Human Rights should have more influence…even to overpower the verdict.
2006-08-09 03:22:01 · 8 answers · asked by Razor 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
So you believe that a democratic majority, in this case some sort of Human Rights committee, should be able to overturn duly rendered jury verdicts?
Fortunately we, (citizens of the U.S.) live in a Republic, not a democracy. In the event that you don't comprehend the difference, I'll explain: A democracy is a form of govedrnment where the majority rules. As an example: Cowboy Joe is accused of stealing a horse. He is arrested and is awaiting the circuit judge to arrive to try him.
Before this can happen however, the majority of the towns people decide that Joe should be dragged out of jail and lynched.
So they break into the jail and carry out their form of justice.
Democracy is MOB RULE. A Republic is a form of government that has laws to carry out justice and protect its citizens. The U.S. constitution is the primary document that guarantees our basic freedoms and human rights.
What you are advocating is the suspension of that constitution, thus allowing mob rule to carry out justice.
That sounds like socialism and fascism to me. And as I recall, the Nazis used their socialist democracy to exterminate over 6 million, Jews, Poles, Catholics, etc.
Your question reflects the typical dogma sponsered by the extreme far left democratic movement in this country. God help us all should you and your ilk ever succeed.
2006-08-09 03:54:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Human rights is a complicated issue. It comes in conflict with the law of nature, most times. Example, criminals seem to have more rights than the agents of the law.
Another example, there are those who say that what Israel is doing in Lebanon is a crime against humanity because of the many people who are dying.
But what about the Israeli soldiers who had been killed and kidnapped by the Hezbollah? Are they not humans?
What makes a greater number of people more human than just one or two? I am not taking sides in the disputes. I am just pointing out the twisted way man view human rights.
2006-08-09 03:33:44 · answer #2 · answered by seabug_46 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you define human rights? This is a big controversy between China and the US and I don't see any difference between the two. I live in China and I enjoy the same rights as you do. Human rights seems a nebulous term to include things which perhaps I can't fathom. If a crime is commited and adjudicated that a person is guilty...how is human rights involved? You can't equate two different things...criminality as opposed to fair and equal treatment. Criminals must be punished by the prevailing laws....but under the restraints of being treated equally for such offenders.
2006-08-09 03:31:54 · answer #3 · answered by Frank 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speaking from a UK perspective I feel all too often the Human Rights Act is misused by those who have denied such rights to others. Here they seem to be employed by those convicted of serious crimes to avoid appropriate punishment. I feel, certainly in this country, they should be replaced by Civic Rights overseen by a Civic Rights Minister who should be empowered to apply common sense not only in criminal matters but also in matters of civil maladministration. Obviously such powers must be used openly so that all can see justice is being done and the legal system, whether criminal or civil, cannot be circumvented by money, smart lawyers or technicalities.
2006-08-09 03:42:47 · answer #4 · answered by bob kerr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way man. A guy just got his guilty verdict tossed out where I live after he killed his girlfriend and left her burning in a ditch. They say that the investigators had no right to look in his car - even though they had plenty of evidence otherwise and the verdict was tossed. Screw Human Rights! He killed a lady and since she has no rights anymore, neither should he.
2006-08-09 03:27:35 · answer #5 · answered by Kris B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that were the case then no one would go to prison because their human rights would over power the verdict all the time. I think human rights need to be inforced by sometimes it goes too far, to the point that criminals are getting away with their crimes.
2006-08-09 03:26:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well that all depends on what kind of humans your talking about. If your talking about middle to upper class white men, then yes. But if you are talking about anyone else, then no, their rights should be striped away.
2006-08-09 04:15:42 · answer #7 · answered by CW 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
our human rights laws are a farce look what is happening all round the world . all we read about is murder , my own belief is bring back a deterrent i think you know what i think.their are to many do gooders looking after the wrong ones
2006-08-10 09:37:25 · answer #8 · answered by kevin h 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋