English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

18 answers

Thank the liberals for that.

Havent you seen them marching in the streets to support the criminals that break our laws by coming here illegally?

I beleive people have rights even though they have commited a crime, but when the criminal's rights outweigh the victims rights something has gone wrong.

2007-10-20 00:35:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

If I understand your question correctly, a criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime. Someone accused of a crime in the United States is presumed innocent. We have to treat the accused with all the rights and protection available. What if you were accused of a murder you did not commit, would you want your rights taken away before the trial? After a trial you are either guilty or not guilty. A guilty person loses a lot of his rights. For example the right to vote, his freedom, and a lot more. However, the United States will never take away a persons human rights. The rack, iron maiden, and Chinese water torture are not permitted in this country. The only human right we do take away is your life if found guilty of a capital crime, the jury recommends death, and the judge agrees.

2007-10-20 01:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

lies , lies, lies the system don't treat inmates well, instead in a very inhumane way. Remember many inmates are innocent and that you never know when something like this will hit home. There is so much police corruption that you don't know who to trust or who to believe. Criminals who are violent and predators I agree should be sentenced to long terms in jail , but because sometimes people are convicted being innocent and because they're human they should be treated with respect. Just isolation is enough punishment. Now, look at the drug dealers they get longer sentences than those who kill or rape . Something wrong with the system

http://www.november.org/thewall/wall/wall.html

Just do some research even some judges don't agree with the prison terms , but their hands are tied because they have to follow law guides minimum sentences that I believe are
unmoral.
Plus justice and liberty are only for those who have lots of money.
Judge opinion

http://www.november.org/dissentingopinions/Bright.html

2007-10-20 01:13:40 · answer #3 · answered by Richard 3 · 0 2

Very simple -- criminals are already being punished for violating the law, and violating the rights of their victims -- that's why they are on trial, and why they face imprisonment (or worse).

However -- the govt doesn't have the right to break the law to punish criminals -- two wrongs don't make it right.

So, the issue of "victim's rights" is not at issue -- because the govt is not doing anything to the victims -- but what the govt does to the criminals is still relevant -- and in the US the Constitution requires specific procedures, and forbids specific govt activities. That's the point of the Constitution -- it limits what the govt is allowed to do...

Remember -- a "right" is just something the govt is not allowed to do -- that's all it is, a restriction on govt conduct.

If the govt breaks the law -- then it is also criminal -- and that defeats the entire purpose of the justice system.

2007-10-20 04:00:08 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 4

international human trafficking is occurring. people who're committing the crimes might desire to be caught and prosecuted. The victims could be from any nationality and the human trafficking is in any u . s .. i will't have faith that some human beings right here say "deport them" like if that exchange into the sufferer's determination, and that they did not point out to punish the individuals who're doing the unlawful trafficking. ( That shows that their prejudice is going too some distance) victims are often taken from their own international locations by making use of those people who're trafficking with them and take them to diverse places so as that they might't be locate by making use of their families in the event that they have any.

2016-11-09 00:16:53 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It's simply down to the civill liberty groups and the solicitors who benefit from such cases.
The civil liberty groups pop up in every corner of the country and cover every civil right, just so long as your a law breaker.
If your a law abiding citizen then your rights will be ignored in favour of the person who has mugged you.
But the worst of it is...the people who allowed these civi, liberty groups in is US...you and me, for voting into power good old Tony Blair and his civil liberty barrister wife Smiler Cherie.
Well done us.....let's all pat ourselves on the backs for helping to put this country in the mess it is now in.

2007-10-20 07:51:06 · answer #6 · answered by blissman 5 · 0 0

Because money buys judges and jurors. Because Justice is
Blind. Because people are supposedly presumed innocent
before being found guilty. Thank God for forensics and DNA
But, sometimes the law is not fair,.. just like life. And some-
times people do get justice. Seems money is more important...than a human life. That's why high priced lawyers
can get someone off, more than a legal aid. Power , money
and greed is what it comes down to. BAH

2007-10-20 00:27:24 · answer #7 · answered by CraZyCaT 5 · 3 1

TOP CLASS QUESTION .Criminals place themselves outside the law ,laws are only for the victims to observe.The same law system then protects the criminal,in some ways ,i can agree with this, up to the point when they are found guilty.Then they have placed themselves beyond any possible defence and should be punished accordingly.Any one who proffesses to be innocent would have voluntary recourse to truth drugs or hypnosis to prove their innocence or otherwise.Terrorists,particularly bombers are totally outside the present laws,indiscriminate murder is only punishable by hard line tactics,obtaining information about others and future programs should be obtained using any means possible to save innocent lives.Termination is then the only logical solution.When something is being destroyed by fire,you put the fire out,you dont relight it in another place.

2007-10-20 00:27:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

one reason could be that we lead by example and another that to uphold the law we must be seen to be keeping to it ourselves. the law is not based on emotions and judgements are based on the law, so we have no option.

added

something I can't understand is this example here in uk news. A fire crew catch 4 men in the bushes one dark evening by shining a light on them. What the 4 were doing was illegal in public, yet they complained that the firecrew had no right to use the fire equipment for such purposes. The firecrewmen were suspended (month I think) and had to pay £1,000 each, yet no charge was brought against those who were knowingly breaking the law. This kind of injustice seems prevalent over here, making people angry and amazed that the guilty can turn things to their advantage.
Giving you a star for a good question.

2007-10-20 00:15:44 · answer #9 · answered by cairn4lodge 4 · 4 1

I've always said that criminals should go through the same punishment they used on their victims-shoot someone, get shot, drown someone, drown them, strangle someone, they should be tied and strangled. I'm in agreement with the person who said the laws are made by people who've never been victims and that is why they are so lenient toward the criminals.

2007-10-20 00:21:37 · answer #10 · answered by marty47 4 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers