I'm not condonding vigilantism, but why should the likes of convicted child molesters be allowed to bleat to the ECHR for fair and equal treatment?
2007-03-07 06:42:22 · 12 answers · asked by Buckaroo Banzai 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No doubt about it - there should be a sliding scale. The more you mess up someone else's existence, the less you should be entitled to the same level of treatment. End of.
2007-03-07 06:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If one is not entitled to something, then it is not a right.
Everyone should be entitled to fair and equal treatment, no matter what they have done. To deny child molesters these "human rights" is to say they are not human and do not deserve the protection of the law. If one is to go that far, why not just say they are not human and have no right to live?
2007-03-07 15:38:53 · answer #2 · answered by David V 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As soon as you start saying human rights only apply to some people then you are starting down a very slippery slope.
Say you begin with child molesters. Logically any rapist should really suffer a similar punishment to a child molester. But what about when someone commits a similar sex crime but not actually rape, they should not get off lightly either.
And what about serial killers? Of course they are pretty much as bad so them too. But thinking about it any serial killer begins with one killing so really any murderer is a potential serial killer and should be dealt with accordingly. And attempted murderers too as they would have killed someone but failed. Not forgetting those who could have killed someone by endangering them (drunk drivers for example).
Soon you pretty much add every crime to the list and it ends up being socially acceptable for mobs to tear apart a 14 year old kid for spraying graffiti.
So if you want to campaign against human rights feel free, just remember that any line you choose to draw will be arbitrary at best.
2007-03-07 15:01:14 · answer #3 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
The main beneficiaries of this Human Rights legislation are lawyers who make huge profits funded by the taxpayer. If legal aid was cut dramatically the cases sent to the ECHR would also fall.
2007-03-07 15:21:06 · answer #4 · answered by JumpinJackFlash 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are a nation of laws, not a band of barbarians.
We do not get to mete out horrific treatment against those people who violate laws which are particularly offensive to us personally. If that were the case, all those fat, rich, white CEOs who screwed thousands of people out of their life savings would be digging ditches right now.
Same laws for everyone, same treatment for everyone.
And food for thought: There are plenty of people in jail who are innocent of the crime they were charged with, or who were homeless, or who are mentally unsound.
People in jail are not any less human than you.
2007-03-07 14:50:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In principle I agree. If you have a criminal record then yes this should impinge on some of the rights enjoyed by other non-offender citizens. In fact this does happen - sex offenders register etc.
2007-03-07 18:41:20 · answer #6 · answered by Moebious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree I think once you violate a child you lose ALL of your rights.Don't even get me started on what I think should be done to people like that....
2007-03-07 14:48:45 · answer #7 · answered by !!! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rights come with responsibilities. If you bear that in mind a lot of things fall into place.
2007-03-07 14:52:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I agree. When you violate someone elses rights then you do not deserve any.
2007-03-07 14:48:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Violation of any rights you should pay the penalty.
2007-03-07 15:48:52 · answer #10 · answered by CLIVE C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋