Murder and Human Rights?

Question

If you take someones life (essentailly Violating every single one of there Human Rights) I dont think you should have the option of falling back on human rights to protect you.

The Now deceased person didnt get the option.

Hopefully that makes sense.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Answer 1

In my on opinion, anyone who chooses to viloate another basic human right (life) should forfiet their own rights as well.

Answer 2

I don't think the Human Rights law is a bad concept e.g. ''The concentration Camps set up by America to emulate the Nazi camps during the second world war. There is no way they can be instigated in a British territory, OK I know that's not strictly true since Tony Blair authorised prisoners being directed to those camps to pass through Britain without a murmur.

But as far as law an order is concerned there is no way a murderer should be given human rights exceeding and above that of the victim and the victims family. No (to those who said it) two wrongs don't make a right but remember it is not the victim who is wrong. Unless a killing is in self defence, there can be no doubt the murderer has left the victim in a state of flux a state in which the victim can't have any human rights because the victim is dead. The problem is: the family lives on and the family have a right to see justice.

Murder is now not treated as a serious crime, 2 or 3 years for killing Head Master Lawrence is clearly a joke. If that had been a robbery of a financial institution the sentence would have been 10 to 20 years even without violence.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of human rights but human rights must be the same for all including the victim and the family.

There must be a dramatic common sense review of the Law as it stands at present.

Sceptic's responce:

OK I stand corrected, I also stand by my view: is a 11 years of a murderers life compensation to the dead man and his family? This 26 year old murderer may now be let loose to enjoy the rest of his life knowing that he has removed the right of existance of a man in his prime and destroyed his family and to add insult to injury he can move in next door if he so wishes.

It is time to make the victim and their family's a priority in these cases but what major mainstream political party is going to do that?

As far as the Murderer's Nationality is concerned, if he has not got British citizenship, if what sceptic is saying is true then as soon as a foreigner lands on our shores they cannot and should not be deported if they overstay their welcome. The murderer should have thought about that when he murdered Lawrence in cold blood. If it is the law of this country that he be deported then he should be deported. You can't change the law to suit whatever point of view you take at the time.
Since the law has not taken the deceased or his families Human right to see justice done in the form of the perpertrator's punishment, then I take the view that the murderer is mighty lucky to escape with his own life and a lenient sentance and being deported is a mere inconvieniece than rather than a tragedy.

Responce: 2

I'm sorry Scep but the length of sentance is extremly important to Mrs Lawrence and her family and any other citizen who lives in this country. The length of sentance depicts and quantifies the value of the deceased's human rights that have been taken away from him or her at the point of death. You openly revoke any suggestion to the death penelty and make no suggestion how to compensate the victim for the loss of his life.

If as you say 11 or 110 years would not compensate the victim and his family, then why sentence the murderous thug at all, perhaps community service would have been a more appropiate punishment. To be honest Scep I don't believe Mrs Lawrence would have been happy with that.

The victims family do have the right to expect justice to be done. Sentencing the killer is the only measure we have of ensuring that murderers make the same sacrifices pro rata (there is no death penalty) as those the killer inflicted on the victim.

Deportation: The point is Spec, what he did do was carry out a horendus murder in cold blood: not satisfied wirth keeping his own life; a very lenient sentence and a supportive judge he now wants to be let loose in our society, knowing that if he goes back to his old ways a clear message has been sent saying that crime pays. If the law says send him back to where he came from then send him there.

ATB Red

Answer 3

The Human Rights Act is there to protect people, not to turn a criminal into a victim, which is what has been happening over the years. Society is slowly becoming intollerant of the unfairness at the way the system consistanlty lets people down. The true victims of crime are left feeling forgotton about. Unless the law is changed to put victims rights first, it won't belong before we will have vigilantes taking the law into thier own hands..and say 'enough is enough'. Then when some teenage yob gets a 'hiding' his Mum will bleat on about her 'poor Johnny', but hopefully she'll be forgotton!

Answer 4

There are basic rules that we all live by,and if you cross those boundary's......namely rape,murder or harming a child,you should be punished to the full extent of the law.......and count your lucky stars that you have not been executed for such disgusting and indefensible crimes.

To claim that Chindano's Human Rights are being breached,because Britain wants to deport the murdering scumbag who has never benefited the land that offered him asylum....but CHOSE to murder a self-sacrificing man,who tried to defend a child from being attacked.....is going beyond any sensible argument.

The criminal may have been 15 years old,but that is old enough to know right from wrong....he had a history of violence and gang involvement,but he made the CHOICE to carry a knife and kill another Human being.

He might show remorse......but i bet the fact he has spent almost his entire youth locked up with some nasty men,might be the reason for that remorse.....rather than for the man he killed and the family he tore apart.

I defy anyone to come up with a moral argument that holds sway as to why people like him should be let loose and stay inside Britain.......and then if your feeling smug because you come up with a clever answer......maybe you might think back to this moment,when the little scumbag stabs someone else in a few years time.

Why should the murdered mans family have to see the murderer walking Britain's streets......and more to the point,why should my family be exposed to utter murdering criminal scum like these.

Answer 5

I fully agree, the Human Rights Act comes under what I call the "Wisdom of Solomon syndrome". To explain, I do think there are people who want to make laws and decisions completely beyond the understanding of "mere mortals". so they come up with a law which in effect rewards a criminal and at the same time punishes the victim or the victim's relatives.

Answer 6

As far as I'm concerned, when you perpetrate an act against your fellow humans, such as murder, you have chucked your human rights down the drain. Why should a person expect their human rights to be respected when they disrespected someone elses to cold bloodedly murder someone? Personally speaking, I'm with David Cameron on this one, the Human Rights Act should undoubtedly be scrapped, and replaced with something that has a modicum of intelligent thought behind it, instead of a tool that 'do-gooder' idiots use to protect the people they champion, people who are basically criminals, and are mostly guilty of inhumane acts against his or her fellow humans, all too often the Human Rights Act crops up when someone of foreign origin has done something seriously wrong. things such as terrorism or murder, and it's looking bad for them, then some hot shot lawyer says breach of human rights, all of a sudden, they haven't done anything and thats them now 'persecuted and discriminated against'. The whole deal sucks, it's socialistic idealism at it's absolute best!

Answer 7

This is where the legal system has fallen down. The same applies to a guilty verdict being found in court. The guilty person can appeal and get the ruling overturned. If found innocent, they cannot be retried due to double- jeopardy rulings, no matter what evidence is found.

Answer 8

I agree with you, but its a tricky subjetc.

What you are saying is that Human Rights are for people who obey the law.

Trouble is, places where they torture people and lock them up for protests or democratic reforms are 'criminals' in their country.

The Saudi's could, for example, torture somebody and imrpison them for their beliefs, and they would claim they were criminals and not entitled to Human Rights.

How can we say that they should be released, but then not offer it to our own convcted criminals?

It would then undermine the whole system, and we might as well abolish the whole system. This is not a good idea, becuase even though its disgraceful what is happeneing the the murdered teacher, it does do good around the world.

I know I will get slated about looking after our own before the rest of the world, but it is what I think.

Answer 9

Yes, to a large degree, but we have to allow a proper trial, innocent til proven guilty, before we start opting people out of their rights.

Furthermore, to whom does this law not apply.The armed services, for example, or the Governments invaders, as they should now be known, will they be tried for every civilian killed, as they should be.

Answer 10

Human Rights are rights you get by being human. Not by being a good human, but by being human. They apply to both the good and the bad.

The deceased person had his human rights breached, which is why his murderer was imprisoned.

The real debate is what should these human rights be. Is a family life a human right, or is it a privilege that can be forfeit by some?

We need to be more careful about what we define as rights and what we define as privileges. Those things we call human rights should apply to all - good or bad, deserving or not.

There will always be individuals who violate the human rights of others and we punish them for it. Nations and organisations must not be allowed to violate those rights.

If a criminal is denied human rights by a government, it is no excuse to say "well, he violated his victim's human rights". As already pointed out, two wrongs etc.....

EDIT: I tried to answer without direct reference to the Philip Lawrence murderer, as the questioner didn't mention it, but it is, of course, very relevant.

The principle of deporting foreign prisoners after sentence is served is a good and fair one. But as the criminal concerned, while holding an Italian passport, has been brought up in this country and has no links to Italy, it does not seem just to deport him. Why does he deserve justice? Because we play by the rules, which is what gives us the right and the authority to punish those who don't.

Just to correct a couple of errors - this murderer has currently served 11 years (not 2 or 3 years as stated below) and is allowed to ask for parole next year, after 12 years. This does not mean he will be released - indeed, the furore that this case has created may well make it unsafe to release him. This is unfortunate - I have no desire to see him released, but I think it's wrong that the reason for his continued detention be fear of the lynch mob.

I stick by my original premise - human rights are for everyone, not just the good. Perhaps this means we need to be more careful about what we define as 'rights'.

MORE EDIT:

In response to Redmonk - If you read my answer a little more carefully, I did say I don't want to see this murderer released. But you talk about compensation to the dead man's family. No, 11 years is no compensation - but nor would 110 years be, nor would a hanging be. Nothing will compensate Frances Lawrence and her children and arguing about the length of sentence is spurious.

I would normally agree with you - deport foreign nationals on completion of sentence. But this case is exceptional, both in the gravity of the crime and the status of the criminal. His official citizenship is based on a long departed father with no contact. His upbringing is British. This is not a casual immigrant - it is someone who did not choose to come to this country and who knows no other country. It would be no more appropriate to deport him to Italy than it would to deport Ronnie Biggs to Italy if we let him out.

Answer 11

Personally, I am pro-capital punishment. Imprisonment for life means 3 meals a day, social interaction and even the eventual possibility of paroll. If someone consciously takes it upon his or herself to revoke the right to life of someone else, his or her rights should be revoked as well. The weeks/months leading up to one's execution has to be punishment in itself. Imagine knowing the exact day and time that you're going to die. And don't even get me started on the number of paroll/escape cases where repeated murders happened.