European Court of Human Rights

[Mabs]

The argument is that the judicial system makes mistakes and convicts innocent people. The argument is that governments create abusive laws that we need protection from. The arguments are that things like the death penalty have no affect on offending rates yet cost a fortune to administer. The argument is that people like you MASSIVELY overestimate the problem because you believe the media.

im pretty fucking sure that those executed for crimes have a ZERO re-offend rate, compared to people who spend time in prison

 

[Gups]

The question is should a convicted criminal have the same rights as the victim they have wronged.

 

[BloodOmen]

Ok then Chilly and Zenith answer me a few questions and I'll shut up.

1. do you think human rights laws should protect known rapists, murderers, terrorists, child abusers?
2. if yes - why (exact reason)
3. if not - why (exact reason)
4. could you stand in front of a family and tell them that the man that murdered their child/brother/sister/mother/father cannot be deported because he deserves human rights and will likely spend less than 10 years in prison for it while also justifying it to them?

 

[BloodOmen]

The question is should a convicted criminal have the same rights as the victim they have wronged.

This is the point i'm trying to drive forward, they shouldn't have any rights at all, if the victim/victims family has to live with it for the rest of their lives so to should the criminal for doing it, Chilly and Zenith don't seem to understand the whole victim thing tho, all they care about is protecting the criminals rights.

 

[Gups]

Ok then Chilly and Zenith answer me a few questions and I'll shut up.

1. do you think human rights laws should protect known rapists, murderers, terrorists, child abusers?
2. if yes - why (exact reason)
3. if not - why (exact reason)
4. could you stand in front of a family and tell them that the man that murdered their child/brother/sister/mother/father cannot be deported because he deserves human rights and will likely spend less than 10 years in prison for it while also justifying it to them?

Also we will pay for them while they are protected in prison as they will lead a better life than a large portion of the population.

 

[Chilly]

This is the point i'm trying to drive forward, they shouldn't have any rights at all, if the victim/victims family has to live with it for the rest of their lives so to should the criminal for doing it, Chilly and Zenith don't seem to understand the whole victim thing tho, all they care about is protecting the criminals rights.

What benefit does the victim get from punishing the offender? The ultimate goal has to be social harmony, and the best route to that is to lower re-offending rates, the best way to do THAT is run peaceful prisons.

 

[Nate]

Is it right that currently any woman could say you've raped her and then you'd be put on the Sexual Offenders list forever, even if it was proven a lie?

 

[soze]

Is it right that currently any woman could say you've raped her and then you'd be put on the Sexual Offenders list forever, even if it was proven a lie?

I am not sure where you got that from. My friend went through a date rape case in the last year. It was a married lady who woke up ashamed of herself and claimed he had drugged her. It went all the way to court before she broke down and told the truth. But he has not mentioned being on the register. He has had to move and find a new job as the bell can never be unrung but he never mentioned the register.

 

[Gups]

What benefit does the victim get from punishing the offender? The ultimate goal has to be social harmony, and the best route to that is to lower re-offending rates, the best way to do THAT is run peaceful prisons.

If your child was raped and murdered by someone who gets just placed in prison and then would get out in a few years time and resume their life. Would you feel the same?

Dealing with a Death is such a raw emotion and when this death is caused by a person it's a whole new ball game.

 

[Chilly]

If your child was raped and murdered by someone who gets just placed in prison and then would get out n a few years time and resume their life. Would you feel the same?

Dealing with a Death is such a raw emotion and when this death is caused by a person it's a whole new all game.

Of course I wouldn't feel the same, I'd be in a murderous rage. But I also would have absolutely no right of revenge and I would hope that society would keep me from doing anything stupid and prioritise the re-integration of that offender into society rather than making me feel better.

It's the blind/fair taxation argument: you ask two people who are about to be randomly inserted into society (with varying income/luck/qualifications/connections/property/health) and ask them to come up with a fair system of taxation and social care. If you think hard about it, the rational choice is to have some kind of progressive taxation where the more you earn the more you pay and have some kind of blanket healthcare and decent state-subsidised training system. The important thing is that you ask the two people BEFORE they are allocated a life. Obviously, once you've been given £10m quid you would say "no tax, fuck you welfare system". The whole point of society is to put pressure on our animalistic urges to be more civilised rather than want revenge. Revenge leads nowhere.

 

[soze]

The argument is that the judicial system makes mistakes and convicts innocent people. The argument is that governments create abusive laws that we need protection from. The arguments are that things like the death penalty have no affect on offending rates yet cost a fortune to administer. The argument is that people like you MASSIVELY overestimate the problem because you believe the media.

There are cases that do suck. Like the current one where we are being told that we can not have whole life sentences. So the ECHR are telling us that we "might" have to let the worst of the worst out on our streets after a maximum sentence that they find acceptable. And worse all of the legal aid and transport costs picked up by these multiple appeals is paid by the tax payer. And these are not people who are appealing innocence that I can understand, new evidence and poor judge ect and you deserve a new trial. These people men that have raped and murdered multiple children will have to be released. And there is no one they are just let out with £100 in their pocket they are set up with a new identity at considerable cost.

As for the death penalty I am against it in 99% of situations. The cases that I think it should be used is rape of the very young say under 13, or premeditated murder which has been proven with cold hard evidence. Cases that rely on eye witnesses should be except as should cases where a man finds his wife in bed with his brother and kills them both. It should only be for cases where they can prove it has been planned and then executed. I then think the original jury should recommend execution. The case should then go before 5 judges who just see the evidence no lawyers playing on emotions no testimony about how sorry you are. If the evidence shows you planned and committed the murder or rape and they agree unanimously then you are sentenced to death.

Now in 99% of the 1% of cases recommended to the death panel would result in prison time but the Ian Huntleys of this would could still end up dead.

 

[Gups]

Of course I wouldn't feel the same, I'd be in a murderous rage. But I also would have absolutely no right of revenge and I would hope that society would keep me from doing anything stupid and prioritise the re-integration of that offender into society rather than making me feel better.

Why no right to revenge? if someone did that to one of my kids, without a shadow of a doubt I would kill them, not to make me feel better but just because that would be all they deserve.

There is no re-integration for some of these people.

 

[Zede]

Why no right to revenge? if someone did that to one of my kids, without a shadow of a doubt I would kill them, not to make me feel better but just because that would be all they deserve.

There is no re-integration for some of these people.

i'm sure it really all just about testosterone ! So we need prime time reality tv were say Mr Ian Huntley himself is strung up on a gallows, only not by the neck, but by the balls. Let him swing ! After, without said balls and new lack of testosterone .. he'd be quite a nice chap. No idea about unpleasent muurderin n' the like ladies though.

 

[BloodOmen]

Of course I wouldn't feel the same, I'd be in a murderous rage. But I also would have absolutely no right of revenge and I would hope that society would keep me from doing anything stupid and prioritise the re-integration of that offender into society rather than making me feel better.

It's the blind/fair taxation argument: you ask two people who are about to be randomly inserted into society (with varying income/luck/qualifications/connections/property/health) and ask them to come up with a fair system of taxation and social care. If you think hard about it, the rational choice is to have some kind of progressive taxation where the more you earn the more you pay and have some kind of blanket healthcare and decent state-subsidised training system. The important thing is that you ask the two people BEFORE they are allocated a life. Obviously, once you've been given £10m quid you would say "no tax, fuck you welfare system". The whole point of society is to put pressure on our animalistic urges to be more civilised rather than want revenge. Revenge leads nowhere.

That's the entire point tho, some of these people DON'T deserve a second chance at society, some of the crimes are so disgusting/disgraceful they should never be treated as a human being again and all rights should be ripped from them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23550946

Should those 2 be re-integrated into society and allowed to remain in the UK? or are they 'special' cases?

 

[Chilly]

The thing about immigration is that we can't really have it both ways. We import pre-trained adult labour to do jobs at rock bottom prices, therefore we should bear the societal costs of having those people here. I *think* and I'm not entirely sure this is correct, but crime rates for working age first generation immigrants is lower than the general crime rate in the UK. I'll try and find the source.

As for those two, they're obviously not fit for society (probably) so bung em in jail and at least have a go at rehabilitating them. If not, let em rot there.

Why no right to revenge? if someone did that to one of my kids, without a shadow of a doubt I would kill them, not to make me feel better but just because that would be all they deserve.

then you'd be a murderer and I'd want you off the streets. I have no kids so I don't feel as emotionally charged as you, but murdering the killer of your children serves no purpose. What if you killed the wrong people? Then not only would you be a vigilante, but you'd be a crap vigilante that's more dangerous to the general public than the initial offender!

 

[Job]

Quite simple if the lawyers take the piss out of it then it will lose the confidence of the public...and taking the fucking piss is the first thing they teach those leeches on society.

 

[Gups]

This debate can never be won, Especially not on these forums.

There is too much shit on both sides of the argument and it will never be solved. at least not in my view until all people who decide to wade in with their opinions has experienced both sides of the argument.

I am not sure why immigration has been brought into the conversation, as there is nothing wrong with immigration it is needed. although maybe a slight change to reduce the numbers are we will run out of space in its current format.

and in answer Chilly yes I would be a murderer I never said it would be the right thing to do, however I strongly believe that if there was a more strict justice system and people really did 'pay for their crimes, then crime would be lower and things like this would not happen in the first place.

Re-offending rates can be as high as 70% you think the current nice nice justice system works ?

 

[rynnor]

Re-offending rates can be as high as 70% you think the current nice nice justice system works ?

That's not to do with sentencing though - its because in the UK we have basically given up on rehabilitation.

Largely because its expensive so we just stick people in overcrowded jails for a few years and somehow expect them to come out law abiding.

 

[Gups]

That's not to do with sentencing though - its because in the UK we have basically given up on rehabilitation.

Largely because its expensive so we just stick people in overcrowded jails for a few years and somehow expect them to come out law abiding.

You do not think that someone would think twice if sentences were tougher then ? in moist criminal minds the rewards can far outweigh being temporarily put inside....

I believe if sentences were tougher then crime rates would drop.

 

[soze]

I believe if sentences were tougher then crime rates would drop.

I do not see this as true Prison Time for criminals is easy time. There is a story in our family about a family friend in Scotland who stabbed a Police officer in the arse with a 1 inch blade so he could be sent back to prison. In prison he had 3 meals a day was always warm and had a TV on the streets he spent all him money on drink and had none of that. So for your average Joe Public prison is a scary place but for a hardened criminal it is a badge of honor and I seriously doubt they care about going back.

The only way to fix prison is to make it hard time but you do that and the ECHR comes along and you are in trouble. So they need more guards, there is a great documentary about Alcatraz having the lowest reoffeder rates in America despite having the worst of the worst sent there. And it was all down to guards rather than 200 inmates to 1 guard it was 4 to 1 so they could police the place properly and take an interest. it made the inmates feel human and they wanted to try harder so they never ended up there again.

 

[DaGaffer]

You do not think that someone would think twice if sentences were tougher then ? in moist criminal minds the rewards can far outweigh being temporarily put inside....

I believe if sentences were tougher then crime rates would drop.

The evidence from the US suggests otherwise.

 

[Chilly]

You do not think that someone would think twice if sentences were tougher then ? in moist criminal minds the rewards can far outweigh being temporarily put inside....

I believe if sentences were tougher then crime rates would drop.

These guys beg to differ: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people

I agree, though, this whole argument is kind of pointless. There's moral and factual problems on both sides of every argument any of us can make. There's no point going round in circles about it. I have my view and you have your equally legitimate view. I do believe that if you started physically punishing people for bad behaviour, behaviour would improve, but it's a pretty barbaric way of doing things and not one that I would approve of.

 

[Gups]

I never said longer easier prison sentences. I said tougher sentences.

Yes prisons should be tougher there is no question of that. Many things in life now are far to easy and get abused.

As the worlds populations increase it is only going to get worse. Is there a cure for this ? no because human rights would stop anything that tried to.

 

[Chilly]

I think this sums up my whole argument:
From the warden of the prison in the link above

It is important that when they are released they are less likely to commit more crimes. That is justice for society.

Justice for society should overrule, in *every* case, justice for an individual. That's my rose tinted view from a position of having experienced very little violent crime.

 

[Gups]

Unfortunately life and people do not work like that.

I would love it also to be like that, however in the cold light of day evil exists and sometimes there is no cure no matter what you believe.

 

[Scouse]

Wow quick way to kill off any real discussion on this topic with such a stupid opening comment

It's not a stupid opening comment - it's a factual opening comment.

Leaving the ECHR is the Daily Mail stance. The stance of the official paper of the UK Nazi party, no less.


As for Abu Hamza - if he was a terrorist or a criminal the place for him to be dealt with is in COURT. The cost to the UK of keeping him locked up in jail without trial was one we were completely correct to bear - because we should have either put him on trial for his crimes - and found him guilty or innocent - or let him go free.

The fact is that the governmen kept a man locked up for ten years without pressing criminal charges.


It is also right that the ECHR protects convicted criminals in the same way as it protects innocents. Only a blanket system has a hope of working - and the ECHR was drafted mindful of that fact.

However, that doesn't mean that convicted criminals escape punishment. They get put in jail - and that is correct. So the ECHR demonstrably doesn't prevent justice from occuring - it helps to prevent injustice from occuring.

Those on this board arguing the opposite - that the ECHR is a block on justice rather than a preventer of injustice - simply don't understand it or its function.

 

[Scouse]

I strongly believe that if there was a more strict justice system and people really did 'pay for their crimes, then crime would be lower and things like this would not happen in the first place

You can believe it all you like but the science has shown your view to be WRONG. Harsher sentencing - including the death penalty - has no deterrent effect.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's not a stupid opening comment - it's a factual opening comment.

Leaving the ECHR is the Daily Mail stance. The stance of the official paper of the UK Nazi party, no less.

Er, yes it is stupid. There was never a "UK Nazi party" for a start. Don't confuse fascists with Nazis, not the same thing, and since that was 70 years and God knows how many proprietors ago, kind of irrelevant. Going Godwin in the first line of a post is never a good way to start.

As for Abu Hamza - if he was a terrorist or a criminal the place for him to be dealt with is in COURT. The cost to the UK of keeping him locked up in jail without trial was one we were completely correct to bear - because we should have either put him on trial for his crimes - and found him guilty or innocent - or let him go free.

The fact is that the governmen kept a man locked up for ten years without pressing criminal charges.

Whatchoo talkin' about Willis? Abu Hamza was tried and convicted:

• Guilty of six charges of soliciting murder under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; not guilty on three further such charges.
• Guilty of three charges related to "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir up racial hatred, [contrary to section 18 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986]",[28] not guilty on one further such charge.
• Guilty of one charge of "possession of threatening, abusive or insulting recordings of sound, with intent to stir up racial hatred [contrary to section 23 of the Public Order Act 1986]".[28]
• Guilty of one charge of "possessing a document containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"[28] under the Terrorism Act 2000, s58. This charge under the Terrorism Act of 2000 related to his possession of an Encyclopedia of Afghan Jihad, an Al Qaeda Handbook and other propaganda materials produced by Abu Hamza.[29]

The extradition process went on in parallel with his sentence.

It is also right that the ECHR protects convicted criminals in the same way as it protects innocents. Only a blanket system has a hope of working - and the ECHR was drafted mindful of that fact.

However, that doesn't mean that convicted criminals escape punishment. They get put in jail - and that is correct. So the ECHR demonstrably doesn't prevent justice from occuring - it helps to prevent injustice from occuring.

Those on this board arguing the opposite - that the ECHR is a block on justice rather than a preventer of injustice - simply don't understand it or its function.

I don't disagree with any of that, but you're on a sticky wicket if you base your evidence of its effectiveness on false premises.

 

[Gups]

You can believe it all you like but the science has shown your view to be WRONG. Harsher sentencing - including the death penalty - has no deterrent effect.

Harsher sentencing does reduce crime as the scumbags are not on the streets.

 

[DaGaffer]

Harsher sentencing does reduce crime as the scumbags are not on the streets.

Except, once again, I'd refer you to the US, where there are harsher sentences, more people in jail than anywhere on the planet, and the crime rate isn't in decline at a steeper rate than in other western countries. Which is what people forget. Crime rates are dropping all over the western world, irrespective of sentencing regimes.

The Americans lock more people up because judges are elected, and being seen to be "tough on crime" is a vote winner. Plus there's a whole nasty economic and racial sub-agenda.

The other problem is that "hanging crimes" (murder, violent rape etc.) are in no way reduced by the threat of capital punishment. This has been proven time and again, because what usually motivates people to commit such crimes isn't susceptible to the threat of any punishment.