Its not my imagination, but recently there's been a number of decision made by the court of Human Rights in the Hague falling in the favour of criminals...? Take this latest case - a CONVICTED MURDERER is proceeding through the courts for the right to IVF treatment to fertilize his wife. If you Murder, and are convicted of such should you not forfiet your Human Rights as you have denied your victim their basic Human Right to life? Is this simply Popular Politic posturing to favour the appearance of the courts or is it just plain idiocy?
2007-01-10 23:25:08 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree that convicted murderers should lose a lot of their rights - but what rights they lose should be enshrined in law, not decided by the prejudices of the general public.
The law states that the punishment for various offences is imprisonment - ie loss of liberty - but does not specifically state that this includes loss of the right to have a family. Since there is no specific provision, the "default law" applies, which is the right under the HRA to the pursuit of family life.
So the court, which tries to decide things based on the words of the laws our governments pass, is quite likely to decide in favour of this prisoner - and would be right to do so, by the remit it is given.
Otherwise, what other rights might "mob rule" arbitrarily decide to take away from prisoners? The right to food, water or air? The right to sleep? The right to speak?
"Is this simply Popular Politic posturing" - clearly not, as it is generally UNpopular with the Daily Mail reader on the street. Oh, and it was Artificial Insemination they wanted, not IVF.
2007-01-10 23:33:09 · answer #1 · answered by gvih2g2 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You seem to be getting your courts mixed up
The international court of Justice which sits in The Hague is the principle Judicial body of the United Nations.
The European Court of Human Rights sits in Strasbourg.
Contrary to popular misconceptions the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EEC but is an organ of the Council of Europe.
2007-01-11 00:28:17 · answer #2 · answered by Corneilius 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is most unfair to call the ECHR a bunch of muppets. At least the real muppets are entertaining.
Do you really want to get on Miss Piggy's bad side?
To answer your question seriously, such a case ignores what punishment is all about. It also puts the burden of paying for it onto the taxpayer. That is grossly unfair.
2007-01-10 23:40:20 · answer #3 · answered by skip 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
heres the truth, they are slowly bringing about the right to be wrong, which legalises the power of evil. suppose someone
is killed in a robbery or what ever, look at the money that can be earned by lawyers, if evil is legalised. paid by the one who is right and paid by the one who is wrong. first case right winns second case wrong wins, they may even get three out of it. only the right to be right should exist. by the way this is a biblical prophesy that right shall be traded for wrong and wrong traded for right. study the prophets it puts you way ahead of all those pillocks in law and politics.
2007-01-10 23:40:21 · answer #4 · answered by trucker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it is not about falling into favouring the criminals,its about how and what way criminals or whoever is treated,human rights is against violence in any way..doesnt matter who it is..everybody deserves to be treatet like an HUMAN
2007-01-10 23:36:45 · answer #5 · answered by sweety4live2000 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed.
It is plain idiocy.
I too think that if you break to law in this way you should be denied some of your human rights as par of the punishment.
2007-01-10 23:34:12 · answer #6 · answered by Great Eskape 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The lunatics are running the asylum.
2007-01-10 23:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Steady on, he hasn't won yet!
2007-01-11 05:42:07 · answer #8 · answered by Joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋