who has to have the more rights??? the victim of a crime or the thing commiting it??

Question

seems more and more are using the Human Rights Act to get away with things....And we Got the X PM'S with Cherie bLiar fighting the laws Hubby made..and the books...Stinks to me as a BLAIR money maker.....

sorry open to comments from the EU only..as this is who it deals with...not the FREEDOM TO DO ALL ACT IN THE U.S.A...thanks anyway...don't want to see my place go your way...as in guns for all..ect..tho i love the way you deal with convicts....all for that!!

Answer 1

The English Tradition is that the person accused needs to have rights to make certain that he is ACTUALLY GUILTY.

It might make the victim feel better to grab some random person and take out the victim's need for revenge, But the history of English Common Law is a slow and often very painful walk away from that sort of injustice.

If the day came that you could be grabbed off the streets and thrown in jail, never to even find out why, before you are tortured and killed, you might have a bit of respect for the laws protecting persons accused. Of course then it would be too late.

The US is wrestling with those issues now and discovering that it is a lot harder to bell a loose cat than one you still have control over.

Criminals great and small will often get away with their crimes, supporting Fascism may net a few small criminals, but many more really huge criminals will be created and supported by that process. Only support for all Human Rights will move twowrd greater Justice.

Answer 2

There are NO Human Rights for the victim.

There are recently implied Human Rights for the perpetrator.

There is a whole industry paid for by our taxes that ensures the Human Rights of all Criminals.

Personally, I believe any Criminal should be made 'Outlaw', this would ensure that the Criminal becomes available for any Justice the Public may wish to attach. In Prison or Escaped.

Answer 3

The problem is that the laws concerning Human Rights now in force in UK were not made here as it were in English Law. The Human Rights Bill or Act is really mainly EU Law.

I have a document before me entitled: "Human Rights: Human Lives - A handbook for public authorities. This document [booklet] is issued by the DCA [Department for Constitutional Affairs], Justice, rights and democracy.

You can obtain a 'free' copy or copies of the above document via e-mail = [e-mail]
or you can telephone them on 0845 601 0540 [calls charged at local rate].

The Human Rights Act of 1998 has been around now for nearly ten years, yet all of a sudden people don't like having rights. Why?

Before the above Act the citizens of UK had very few rights at all - not even the right to phone home from a Police Station if arrested.

Far too many of us seem to know our 'rights' but not know our duties at citizens.

It all begins with respect. Respect for other people's space. Once we lose that there will be open conflict on our streets. Already vigilante groups are being set up in some areas, no doubt to take revenge of miscreant youths whom they think are causing trouble in their area[s].

Edit: In UK it has always been the case that an arrested person is 'innocent until proved guilty, beyond a shadow of doubt'.

Because a person has been arrested and accused of say burglary, does not prove that person is a burglar or has committed any such crime. It is not for the police to decide this, but a court of law. Evidence must be presented in court and a fair trial, if necessary before a jury, and so forth.

The presumption of innocense is what really counts in English Law.

In the USA last year, President Geo. W Bush, at a stroke, removed the law of Habeas Corpus from the American legal code. This law was put in place in England and America by an English Parliament in the 16th century on the express wishes of the Soverign. The law is still in existance here in UK and what it means is that no authority can ever just throw a person in jail and hold them there illegally.

In America, they can. The Constitution of the United States has had the guts ripped right out of it by do-gooder right wing goons who think every citizen is a murderer and thief.

They judge their own people by their own standards.

We must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of believing that the criminal has more rights than the victim. This is simply not the case. It's just that a person arrested has rights which are defined in law. The victim of a crime has the right to challenge an adverse decision by a court and so on.

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI n common law countries, habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Habeas Corpus Defined and ExplainedDefinition of 'Habeas Corpus' - Lat. 'you have the body' - Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas ...
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm

The Habeaus Corpus law will soon be re-introduced into Congress it will be : -

the habeas corpus restoration act of 2007
http://www.thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.00185

The Habeaus Corpus Act has allowed accused persons since the 17th century to use this law for their own protection against an authority of zealots who would arrest people for no other reason that they do not like the colour of their hair.

Answer 4

In the UK today I'd say the thug wins every time.

Those who do the right thing, work hard, support themselves and stay on the right side of the law get a lot less in the way of "goodies" than those who don't.

Answer 5

It's rather cynical of my but I believe the European Human Rights Act was created by lawyers FOR lawyers, it's a gravy train. It has little or no impact on the lives of normal people going about their daily life but is providing one get out clause after another for criminals looking for a way out or an easier life.

At best a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Answer 6

The Victim, convicted felons and those on remand loose the right to liberty. Otherwise with a few minor exceptions they both enjoy equal human rights as humans.

Whether or not that is morally right is a different question.

Answer 7

Burglars now have more rights than their victims.As it is now universally recognised burglary is a profession,you the victim will get charged.The charge would probably be denying him the right to work.So in the future when a burglar calls on you,make him a cup of tea and bake a cake for him.Be less costly in the long run.

2 thumbs down now,doing well aren't i.Friends of mine i bet,or mackams without a sense of humour.Don't take it so serious man,laugh.

Answer 8

Are you asking who HAS more rights or are you asking who SHOULD have more rights? It seems that criminals (oops, alleged criminals) have taken the concept of civil liberties to an extreme that was never intended to be extended to them. Courts and judges SHOULD use common sense but have dug themselves into a hole that they can't escape. The poor victim of a crime is lucky not to be sued by the criminal.

Answer 9

The criminal definitely has more rights than the victim. The victim is usually dead and has no rights

Answer 10

the victim of course, but you left something out, those who promote pure evil in the name of entertainment and influence
the weak minds of those who are going to be the criminals.