Is political correctness going too far?what about the rights of ordinary people who want to live in a safe environment and be protected by the law.
2007-03-08 01:28:49 · 7 answers · asked by leopardshaz 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I fail to see how victims' rights are being neglected. What Amendments are they ignoring? Could you give an example? I can. Try the widely publicized Duke University rape trials. Three lacrosse players from wealthy families were accused of raping an African American stripper, among other things. They were expelled, arrested, and convicted in the press without a shred of evidence against them (the physical evidence actually supports their innocence). The lead prosecutor is now under investigation for violating the players' rights. Do you think they should be convicted anyway?
2007-03-08 01:58:06 · answer #1 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed. The government basically says that if a man comes into your house and tries to rape you, and you stab him, you can go to jail! I hope that whoever proposed that law (some pseudo-intellectual uni grad pansy liberal wanker!) has a big violent man break into their house and they have to run and hide like the rest of us do! The problem is that the b*stards who make these laws don't live in bad neighborhoods, so it's just the humble people without money who have to put up with being terrorized by criminals!
No way! Someone is in my house without my permission, jail or no jail they are getting the everloving crap beat out them at the very least. These are liberal laws, and liberals live away from the problems which they make the decisions on how to solve. I hate liberals so much. Over priviledged idiots.
2007-03-08 10:02:21 · answer #2 · answered by everythinguknowiswrong 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In relation to cases such as the James Bulger case - yes. The right of privacy for the killers was held to be more important than public knowledge of their whereabouts (hence why they were granted a permanent injuction for disclosure of their names etc).
The reason being - the courts felt their lives were at risk if their names were public knowledge. What about the life of Jamie Bulger which they took away?
On the other hand, the courts have a duty to protect people (the criminals lives as well as potential victims lives), so bit of a thinker that one....
2007-03-08 09:50:21 · answer #3 · answered by KSP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Too right
I comes to something when a criminal can sue their victim for injuries they receive while carrying out a criminal act. When had they not been breaking the law they would not have been injured in the first place.
2007-03-08 09:37:55 · answer #4 · answered by Dreamweaver 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Explain, please. Some things do enable them, yes, but most of the new procedures are done to assure that the alleged are innocent until proven guilty. Before the Warren Court, there was no Miranda rights, no court appointed lawyers, and any confession, even if it was forced through threats, could be admissable in court. Would you really want to go back to that time, when any average Joe could have their freedom bullied away and put in a prison for the hell of it?
2007-03-08 09:37:29 · answer #5 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you are talking about the accused, trust me, if you've ever been arrested for something you didn't do you will cry foul if your right are trampled upon.
However, if you're referring to the convict, the major problem has to do with over crowding of prisons. If you haven't noticed, we build more prisons and have more crime. We need to focus on prevention of crimes. After we've been victimize, it's too late.
2007-03-08 09:39:58 · answer #6 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES! Criminals have entierly way too many rights!
2007-03-08 09:38:08 · answer #7 · answered by fitforlife0032 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋