There was a case recentley in the U.K of an illegal immigrant who raped a 14 year old girl and sued he was awarded £50.000 and a case of some inmates who sued and won because they were forced to go cold turkey without drugs all of this was done because they had claimed there human rights were being a abused.
Why is the human rights act why is it so open to abuse?
2006-12-21 23:28:54 · 13 answers · asked by Zander 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It's most likely that the law makers at the time didn;t perceive that it would be used in the way that it too often is, to assist the criminal. Alot of the blame must be put on the judges and their interpretation of the act, you'd hpe that some common sense would come into it but it would appear not.
Personally in my opinion once somebody has broken the law they have forfeited their human rights since they obviously had no respect for the victim of thier crimes rights!
2006-12-21 23:34:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i don't know about the illegal immigrant case, but the inmates cases wasn't about the HRA, they sued under battery, the media pretended that it was the HRA because they think its a European Union piece of legislation and they have liked to slag the EU off recently.
So to answer your question, people don't abuse the HRA, the HRA is there to protect everybody, if your rights have been breached you can rely on it. The courts do not allow the HRA to be abused, it is used correctly. The stories you hear are simply the media trying to cause uproar. So rest easy; it isn't abused.
Bruver
2006-12-21 23:37:31 · answer #2 · answered by bruverhoodofman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I havent heard enough on either of those cases to comment but i have heard of other cases where the Human rights act is abused, its sad when it happens but it is still a really important and valuable act to protect our rights.
2006-12-22 00:36:25 · answer #3 · answered by BABY BELL 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it was dreamed up as something to which in theory we all subscribe (after all, who is going to deny that we are all humans and as such are entitled to certain very high sounding ideals of treatment), which in theory sounds reasonable and sane and in theory purports to bring about Utopia, but which in practice is essentially flawed. It encourages a general clamouring for perceived rights, while leaving out of the equation that in claiming our rights we at the same time have a responsibility to those around us which should be honoured. We are behaving like wilful children rather than as adults who are able to see other points of view than their own. When I insist on my right to smoke, I ignore totally your right to clean air because I see my right as paramount. When I avail myself of my right to fish for cod, I do so in complete disregard for the right of future generations to have a well stocked sea. Perhaps these are not great examples, but the fact is that while everyone is asserting his rights and ignoring his responsibilities, things do not go well. The Human Rights legislation is a topic of discussion in certain British Overseas Territories and I recall that in one such territory people were very excited about the prospect of having all kinds of rights (it sounded rather splendid and glorious to them) until it was pointed out that the foreigners in their midst would also enjoy those rights and that it would no longer be permitted, for example, to deport small babies soon after birth or deny foreign mothers whose babies were not subject to deportation under the immigration rules the right to have more than two children! What is more, it would no longer be acceptable to imprison and deport refugees to their country of origin when they stopped at the islands for fuel and repairs to their boats. Life, in short, would never be the same again! What had sounded so wonderful began to sound rather menacing, put in that light.
Experience is displaying the lack of sound thinking behind this enactment. We are now a country ruled by judges, as anything which does not fall into line with the concept of Human Rights has to amended by Parliament. We live in troubled times.
2006-12-22 04:43:00 · answer #4 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government is so politically correct these days and still seems to have a hang over of colonial guilt. If you are black, poor and preferably an immigrant the chances are your case will be taken more leniently. If you are white and middle class - well God help you!
2006-12-27 04:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by caroline g 1 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Peter H I work and pay tax and dont wont my money going to a rapist who wasnt even supposed to be here thats why I care.
The probelm is there seems to be a lack of common sense that seems to put the rights of the criminal above the rights of the victim.
2006-12-21 23:50:07 · answer #6 · answered by Neal 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
there is always loopholes in the legal system, and often departments of governments use these loopholes, to get them clean free, or be able to use power without alowning the civilian a right to even their own human right.
2006-12-28 09:05:49 · answer #7 · answered by lonely as a cloud 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we live in a namby pamby society full of do gooders who only change their minds when some piece of filth comes along and rocks the're boat
2006-12-25 21:38:03 · answer #8 · answered by Terence K 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Modern legislation is intentionally drafted with ambiguity, uncertainty and even absurdity. This enable lawyers (may Hell overflow with their black souls) to earn vast fees (often funded by taxpayers) testing these points in court.
2006-12-21 23:42:58 · answer #9 · answered by Clive 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's man-made, therefore flawed intrinsically.
2006-12-21 23:30:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋