Human [rights], what are those to you?

[thejamppa]

It seems human rights are more or less "elastic" concept, adapting on situation and what part of the world we live. UN seems to apply human rights or enforce them slightly different depending country / continent.

Peoples always talk human rights. To you what do you think are human rights or should be something consider one. I hope you don't look those uo from UN and other place, I wish just to see what you, regular joe's and user's of this site consider human rights or should be one.

And how do you think human rights should be enforced or should they be enforced at all, or does enforcing human rights make us hypocrites who violates other humans rights for defending others?

[Calculus]

Well, I live in the US, and here's my opinion...

For a long list of human rights, you might look at the Bill of Rights in the Constitution... For example:

The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, forbids infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, by Congress or citizens in a federal territory [3] and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[4] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.

I believe in all the above rights, and many more.

[judge56988]

I'm pretty satisfied with the way it is in the UK currently. I think we have more basic freedoms than we ever have done in the past. I'm sure there will be those that disagree and want to talk about the "nanny state" interfering with everything these days, or increased state surveillance, but I assume we're talking about fundamental rights here.

I am of the opinion that a person should have the right to end their life if they so wish. This sort of thing seems to be a grey area at the moment. Sure, if you are physically able to do it yourself you can, but suicide is still against the law. The problem is with those that need assistance because they may be paralysed or whatever.

The whole subject is fraught with difficulty and people are always going to argue about what should or should not be a "human right".
A right to vote is a pretty basic one, but some forfeit that right - prisoners, the mentally ill but where should the line be drawn? How bad should your crime be to lose that right? How mentally ill? Should people be required to have a certain level of education to be able to vote for instance? How much influence does the media have over the opinions of the general public? One man one vote sounds fine in principal but if the one man is Rupert Murdoch let's say, he may influence several million people.

The right to a fair trial is another basic one, as is the right of people to be protected from harm; so when that rapist is convicted, I don't want to see him back on the streets on parole after a year or so. Or muggers getting off with community service.

Freedom of speech...essential I think.

As far as imposing our version of human rights on other societies - that's a whole big can of worms. I've worked in Saudi a bit and it is a very strange feeling you have over there. It is so different. If it works for them and they are happy that's fine by me. Crime is virtually non-existent and they would argue, with some justification, that their harsh punishments have led to that situation. I feel that if they did have a free election, they would vote for pretty much what they have now.
If however, there's millions being gassed because of their race, then that's not acceptable.

[andyb]

"Human rights" are just that, but "human rights" as talked about by "Amnesty International" etc are often wrong and often stupid. I personally believe that every single human rights lawyer in the country should be attacked in their own homes by criminals just so that I can see them trying to defend the criminals afterwards - that would be hilarious.

Human rights lawyers etc, have gone way too far, and decent governments should create sensible laws so that criminals loose their (equivalent) human rights for the crime(s) that they have committed, instead of defending them, and putting their "human rights" ahead of the peoples rights they have violated.

Simply put, "human rights" are obviously needed, but "human rights" have been taken to heart so much by some that the real "human rights" have been ignored.


Andy

[tehfire]

Not sure if I qualify as an average joe, but I guess I just want to write, anyways...

Others in my field have spend lifetimes trying to hash this concept out, so obviously my view is a little premature. For the most part, I am a Kantian ethicist, though not all my views are views that were held by Kant. This is to say that I disagree with Mackie. I believe that there exists an objective entity that is morality, and by definition moral agents (including humans) are bound by it. I see a clear distinction between descriptive claims (how the world is) and normative claims (how the world ought to be). Like Kant, I believe that the fundamental principle of morality lies somewhere with autonomy - that is, rational, self-conscious agents ought to be allowed to do what they want/desire. This ability ends when one's desires unfairly infringes upon another's rights. Of course, the application of this principle is one fraught with gray areas, but I think that the fundamental principle stands, regardless of the problems with its implementation.

To this end, I see most moral codes to consist of what Searle calls social constructions. This is a point with which most contractarians would whole-heartedly agree. That is, with the fundamental principle of autonomy in mind, those laws that are implemented by societies are part of a social contract. This is to say that at the beginning there is nothing moral or immoral about driving on a certain side of the road, but once a society has agreed to abide to driving on a certain side of the road, I do see this social construction to have moral binding. This becomes iffy, however, when laws are put into place that seem prima facie immoral. I'm not sure at what point an unjust law no longer binds.

Lastly, I would go further than Kant would, and say that Singer has a point in asserting the fundamental right of animals. Pain and other suffering, even without rationality, is a sufficient condition to merit its protection. This is to say that even animals (even those that we eat) ought to be afforded some protections. I am not sure whether this means complete protection from being "grown" and slaughtered, or whether this just means that the means by which they are raised and slaughtered must be made more humane, however.

So to me, human rights are those things that human moral patients (those that ought to receive moral consideration) ought to be afforded. The fundamental principle that this should be guided by is autonomy. After this, social constructions of a society take care of making other laws by which people ought to be compelled to follow, but there is a limit that I cannot define properly. The idea of the social construction is important, because it explains how societies can have differing moral codes while they all could, in theory, be just.

[judge56988]

Human rights lawyers etc, have gone way too far, and decent governments should create sensible laws so that criminals loose their (equivalent) human rights for the crime(s) that they have committed, instead of defending them, and putting their "human rights" ahead of the peoples rights they have violated.

Andy

+1

[aristide1]

Human rights lawyers etc, have gone way too far, and decent governments should create sensible laws so that criminals loose their (equivalent) human rights for the crime(s) that they have committed, instead of defending them, and putting their "human rights" ahead of the peoples rights they have violated.

Andy

We've had some of that in the past. I think we called them lynch mobs.

I'm curious what happens when evidence proves the conviction was incorrect. Do we get to put the lawyers and the jury behind bars?

[walle]

I think we have more basic freedoms than we ever have done in the past.

People need to stop adhering to the observable lies and start adhering to the unobservable truth, the sooner the better.

…but I assume we're talking about fundamental rights here

You have a skew view on fundamental rights my friend, no offence. One fundamental right is to be under no surveillance, not swapped for DNA, not for kids to have their fingerprints taken at school, just to name a few things that which violates the fundamental rights that you, as a human being, are entitled too have. Lastly, I hope that any response to these lines want prove to be a stiff defence of these violations, because violations they indeed are.


/end rant

[andyb]

We've had some of that in the past. I think we called them lynch mobs.

I have not suggested any such thing at all.

I'm curious what happens when evidence proves the conviction was incorrect. Do we get to put the lawyers and the jury behind bars?

Only if those persons can be proven to have altered, created, or with-held evidence that has resulted in a wrongful conviction.

In reality, this does happen, below is such an example (yet to be proven to be inocent) of this kind of wrongdoing. But within that same article you may notice (if you read the news and live in the UK) that this guy is still behind bars after all of this time, this is rarely heard of now. Most murderers dont even end up in jail for 20-years now, this seems to be a 2-teir system. Person A gets convicted of murder in 1982, and is still in jail, person B gets convicted of murder in 1992, and is due to be released any time now. No doubt if someone commits murder in 2019 they will be released in 2039. Has the value of human life decreased over the last few decades.?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 938033.stm

It's ridiculous that the law system in this country is becoming more lenient with regards to the sentence lengths to this degree, whilst also pampering to prisoners needs, and costing us tax payers large sums of money in the process.

And below is linked a very different kind of miscariage of justice, and a crime to all tax payers in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7933228.stm

This should have been thrown out of court straight away, and would have saved the tax-payer £18,000 + the victims own personal costs, and problems. Why should some scummy rapist that is is prison even be allowed to claim money off of someone else at the tax-payers expense.

Please explain how that is a rightful thing to do.


Andy

[judge56988]

I think we have more basic freedoms than we ever have done in the past.

People need to stop adhering to the observable lies and start adhering to the unobservable truth, the sooner the better.

…but I assume we're talking about fundamental rights here

You have a skew view on fundamental rights my friend, no offence. One fundamental right is to be under no surveillance, not swapped for DNA, not for kids to have their fingerprints taken at school, just to name a few things that which violates the fundamental rights that you, as a human being, are entitled too have. Lastly, I hope that any response to these lines want prove to be a stiff defence of these violations, because violations they indeed are.


/end rant

That's your opinion, "my friend" and you're entitled to have it; just as I'm entitled to have mine and I happen to think that CCTV surveillance and DNA testing means more muggers, rapists, serial killers and other scum get caught and locked up. If you aren't doing anything wrong, what have you got to worry about?

Lastly, I do take offence when you preach to me about what are and are not human rights, as if someone has given you the right to decide for all of us!

[walle]

That's your opinion, "my friend" and you're entitled to have it; just as I'm entitled to have mine and I happen to think that CCTV surveillance and DNA testing means more muggers, rapists, serial killers and other scum get caught and locked up.

I’d never encountered muggers, rapists, serial killers and other scum in kindergarten, that being said though; you wish to solve unrighteousness with more unrighteousness?

I wish just to see what you, regular joe's and user's of this site consider human rights or should be one.

Breathe fresh air, being able to drink fresh water, able to eat healthy food, no polluted crap, that, to me, would be one of the basic human rights.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I don't think that the issue of human rights centers on the defense of criminals or the victims of their crimes -- but it has much more to do with the powerless and down trodden people, en mass. It has everything to do with defending the right of all people to have all the things necessary to live and to prosper; and to protect all people from the excesses of the powerful.

[andyb]

I don't think that the issue of human rights centers on the defense of criminals or the victims of their crimes -- but it has much more to do with the powerless and down trodden people, en mass.

I do think that it is a human right to have laws athat are upheld by our governments, and I also think that peoples rights (where appropriate) are taken away from them when they commit a crime, and that the person who has had a crime committed against them should be looked after a great deal better.

-----

I do agree with you when you say that human rights should be far more reaching than the laws of a rich country. Everyone should in theory have clean water, food, and somewhere safe to sleep at night, but this is not the case at all.

Take the majority of Africa for example, a huge percentage do not have one or more of those things, and one reason for that is that powerful people are treading on powerless people. But how do we reverse this scenario.??? There are some practical things that some big companies are doing to even up the balance between those with/without power.

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/

Huge quantities of minerals are dug up in Africa at a fraction of the cost of other parts of the world, but that is the same reason why huge amounts of products are manufactured in China - its cheap, and available.... If Africa suddenly became expensive, then those companies would move elsewhere, so Africa would not benefit at all (although it is arguable if Africa is currently benefitting). It is true though that the persons who work in mines in africa are being exploited, a "Fairtrade" scenario would be ideal for the mining industry.

Corruption and aid are actually the biggest problems in Africa (I believe), if the governments were not warmongering, selfish bastards then the place would be far more prosperous, but without external interference this cannot be achieved (I believe).

Aid is a massive problem in Africa, if the western world stopped giving Africa aid it would have a catastrophic affect in the short term. But in the long term as the population decreases naturally it would be a great benefit, as then there would be enough arable land to sustain the population without aid. There is no simple solution here as millions of people would die, but millions of people are dying anyway, and the population is not sustainable without aid, and is artificially high due to 20+ years of aid. This problem has been caused by the west, and I can only see the problem being solved by the west, but it is not an easy descision to make. Imagine if the effects of global climate change ruin crops around the world for a couple of years, the population of Africa will be decimated as all aid will be cancelled, thus bringing Africa and much of the worlds population into more practical figures.

So, back to your point Neil. The mass populous of Africa that is largely downtrodden, and missing many of the "human rights" that we dont just expect, but take for granted. I doubt that many of those people consider those things "human rights" at all, many are probably happy to get food on a regular basis, and will drink the water regardless of the colour - humans have created human rights, how long before we start to call "Fast Broadband" a "human right" - it is a matter of perspective as much as anything else, one persons perspective will be very different from someone elses a thousand miles away.


Andy

[judge56988]

I’d never encountered muggers, rapists, serial killers and other scum in kindergarten,

You will note that I didn't mention kindergarten...
Like many others you fail to see what is actually on the screen in front of your eyes.

[judge56988]

Aid is a massive problem in Africa, if the western world stopped giving Africa aid it would have a catastrophic affect in the short term. But in the long term as the population decreases naturally it would be a great benefit, as then there would be enough arable land to sustain the population without aid. There is no simple solution here as millions of people would die, but millions of people are dying anyway, and the population is not sustainable without aid, and is artificially high due to 20+ years of aid. This problem has been caused by the west, and I can only see the problem being solved by the west, but it is not an easy descision to make. Imagine if the effects of global climate change ruin crops around the world for a couple of years, the population of Africa will be decimated as all aid will be cancelled, thus bringing Africa and much of the worlds population into more practical figures.

So, back to your point Neil. The mass populous of Africa that is largely downtrodden, and missing many of the "human rights" that we dont just expect, but take for granted. I doubt that many of those people consider those things "human rights" at all, many are probably happy to get food on a regular basis, and will drink the water regardless of the colour - humans have created human rights, how long before we start to call "Fast Broadband" a "human right" - it is a matter of perspective as much as anything else, one persons perspective will be very different from someone elses a thousand miles away.

Andy

I agree completely.

(Incidentally, the gold deposits in SA would not be economically viable if Western wages and Health and Safety regulations were applied.)

[walle]

You will note that I didn't mention kindergarten....

Correct, you did not mention kindergarten…I did.

Like many others you fail to see what is actually on the screen in front of your eyes.....

This was funny to me, the irony of it.

[aristide1]

We've had some of that in the past. I think we called them lynch mobs.

I have not suggested any such thing at all.

I did not mean to imply you did. I'm just trying to show a slippery slope here.

I'm curious what happens when evidence proves the conviction was incorrect. Do we get to put the lawyers and the jury behind bars?

Only if those persons can be proven to have altered, created, or with-held evidence that has resulted in a wrongful conviction.

In reality, this does happen, below is such an example (yet to be proven to be inocent) of this kind of wrongdoing. But within that same article you may notice (if you read the news and live in the UK) that this guy is still behind bars after all of this time, this is rarely heard of now. Most murderers dont even end up in jail for 20-years now, this seems to be a 2-teir system. Person A gets convicted of murder in 1982, and is still in jail, person B gets convicted of murder in 1992, and is due to be released any time now. No doubt if someone commits murder in 2019 they will be released in 2039. Has the value of human life decreased over the last few decades.?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 938033.stm

It's ridiculous that the law system in this country is becoming more lenient with regards to the sentence lengths to this degree, whilst also pampering to prisoners needs, and costing us tax payers large sums of money in the process.

And below is linked a very different kind of miscariage of justice, and a crime to all tax payers in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7933228.stm

This should have been thrown out of court straight away, and would have saved the tax-payer £18,000 + the victims own personal costs, and problems. Why should some scummy rapist that is is prison even be allowed to claim money off of someone else at the tax-payers expense.

Please explain how that is a rightful thing to do.

Andy

I didn't say it was, I'm simply suggesting there's 2 sides to every issue. Some US states don't want to hear about new DNA evidence, some do. Life in prison (versus jail) here is not sweet. Homeless people may slug a cop to go to jail, but not to prison, for the winter to get out of the cold. Nobody tries to go to prison on purpose. A friend who is a cop says he'd prefer voluntary capital punishment to the prisons he has seen.

Some of what may be called coddling can be in the public's and the guard's favor. Better a prisoner watch TV than to plan another beating, rape, or escape; idle hands and all that.

[andyb]

Some US states don't want to hear about new DNA evidence, some do.

That is something thas has been happening here for a few years, cold cases are being dug out and re-examined with new evidence, and new technology to convict people decades after the crime, and likewise to release people from their cells.

Nobody tries to go to prison on purpose. A friend who is a cop says he'd prefer voluntary capital punishment to the prisons he has seen.

That is similar to what I believe prison should be like, punishment. But saying that read on....

Guards beating the shit out of prisoners and letting them stab each other is not the right thing to do. Prisoners should not have any luxuries at all, but should be educated where possible, and ideally employed to help pay for their stay Prisoners should not be alowed to continue being criminals behind bars, violence, theft and drugs should not be allowed to happen in prison like they do.

The whole concept of prison is punishment, so they should be punished, but as has been proven in more recent years it should not all be punishment. They should ideally learn a trade, have responsibility and some self respect whilst working within prison, so that when it comes for them to be released they can survive and act as a decent human being - re-habilitation is good. But as it is in the UK, prisoners have Sky TV, radio's, newspapers, regular visitors bringing them drugs to feed their habit and sell for a profit etc - thats not punishment in my view - thats what they had before less the fredom.


Andy

[aristide1]

Agreed. Also - If life in prison is the highest punishment one can get, then that person can kill at will with no down side? I suppose you can move them to one of those super max facilities where they will most likely go insane, but costs there are extremely high.

There have been studies where prisons in peaceful surroundings, pastures and trees and such, leads to calmer prisoners. There are also diet adjustments that can be made, the elimination of certain foods that may make someone who already has a hair trigger to go postal. To that I would add no professional wrestling for this batch of viewers. No Sopranos either, why people glorify scum is beyond me.

Punishment is actually not the whole concept. I forget the term but simply keeping them out of public circulation is also a factor. Avoiding or mitigating recidivism has to be worked on.

We supposedly surpassed 1% of the US population in jail. It's much worse %-wise for adult males, and just unbelieveable for adult male blacks. From a dollars and cents view we can't afford this path, even experts who have been very pro-prison pro-punishment no leniency agree we can not afford to continue this path. Problem is nobody is even considering any alternatives.

I always thought as a society we are extremely wasteful. We toss a refrigerator or washing machine into a junk yard because the cost of the materials retrieval can't be justified. Let prisoners take such devices apart and sell separate metals and such as scrap. Seriously, how much copper alone still goes into junk yards? Aluminum? Some prisons have gardens; if prisoners want fresh veges they grow their own. Works for me.

[judge56988]

Punishment is actually not the whole concept. I forget the term but simply keeping them out of public circulation is also a factor. Avoiding or mitigating recidivism has to be worked on.

Prison is also supposed to be a deterrent - that's probably why it is not meant to be a pleasant place.

[aristide1]

Punishment is actually not the whole concept. I forget the term but simply keeping them out of public circulation is also a factor. Avoiding or mitigating recidivism has to be worked on.

Prison is also supposed to be a deterrent - that's probably why it is not meant to be a pleasant place.

More precisely prison is suppose to be a deterrent to crime, which it clearly is not. What you end up with a 2nd or 3rd time is a repeat criminal who goes berserk when they are about to be arrested. So your statement is more correct in reality, but in theory it's not quite like that.

[judge56988]

Punishment is actually not the whole concept. I forget the term but simply keeping them out of public circulation is also a factor. Avoiding or mitigating recidivism has to be worked on.

Prison is also supposed to be a deterrent - that's probably why it is not meant to be a pleasant place.

More precisely prison is suppose to be a deterrent to crime, which it clearly is not. What you end up with a 2nd or 3rd time is a repeat criminal who goes berserk when they are about to be arrested. So your statement is more correct in reality, but in theory it's not quite like that.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? - I didn't specifically mention crime because I assumed that was what we were talking about?
And perhaps it does deter some, maybe more people would break the law if the only punishment was a fine.

Back on topic, and regarding AndyB's comments; I don't believe that prisoners guilty of the most heinous crimes should retain any rights whatsoever - by virtue of what they did they will have forfeited those rights. IMHO a man that rapes and kills children should suffer some of the terror and agony that his victim(s) suffered. Call me old fashioned if you want, tell me that revenge solves nothing, but I believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

[NeilBlanchard]

The most basic human right, is the right to be able to live one's life with all the basic requirements. This includes access to all things that are required for living: clean water, clean air, and a safe food supply.

What's the next human right on the list?

[walle]

The most basic human right, is the right to be able to live one's life with all the basic requirements. This includes access to all things that are required for living: clean water, clean air, and a safe food supply.

Agreed, it’s the most basic one which has yet to be met, it makes me cringe.

What's the next human right on the list?

Good question Neil, all I will say right now is that I would like to dispose of the primary one first. I mean, if we’re unable (as we indeed are) to even get the first one in place how are we then to get any other in working order? Heck, most fellow humans don’t even give a second thought as to what they put into their systems, let alone what gets into their systems.

[andyb]

Back on topic, and regarding AndyB's comments; I don't believe that prisoners guilty of the most heinous crimes should retain any rights whatsoever - by virtue of what they did they will have forfeited those rights. IMHO a man that rapes and kills children should suffer some of the terror and agony that his victim(s) suffered. Call me old fashioned if you want, tell me that revenge solves nothing, but I believe that the punishment should fit the crime.

My point exactly.

Murderers, rapists and violent criminals loose all rights.

Thieves, burglars and fraudsters loose all off their money rights (no fancy lawyers, no money, no house, no possesions).

Less violent criminals and minor thieves lose a proportionate amount of their possesions and rights.

Peoples bank accounts should be looted, peoples possesions should be sold (including houses and cars) to pay for their crimes to be investigated by the police, run through the court system and then be looked after by guards in prison.

That is a deterrant, and will hurt people in ways that they hurt others, and it will save the taxpayer a huge quantity of money.

I always thought as a society we are extremely wasteful. We toss a refrigerator or washing machine into a junk yard because the cost of the materials retrieval can't be justified. Let prisoners take such devices apart and sell separate metals and such as scrap. Seriously, how much copper alone still goes into junk yards? Aluminum? Some prisons have gardens; if prisoners want fresh veges they grow their own. Works for me.

Fantastic idea, you could also have them standing at a conveyor belt sorting out the plastic / metal / paper etc from peoples recycling. Or any other job, so long as it does'nt interfere with jobs that people actually do, we certainly dont want to take jobs away from non-criminals.


Andy

[aristide1]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here? - I didn't specifically mention crime because I assumed that was what we were talking about?And perhaps it does deter some, maybe more people would break the law if the only punishment was a fine.

You're right, but what I am saying is the criminal in prison doesn't end up thinking "I won't commit a crime again," instead they end up thinking "I'm not going back there again." In too many cases it's not the same thing, they commit more crimes, but become very violent when apprehended.

[nick705]

My point exactly.

Murderers, rapists and violent criminals loose all rights.

Thieves, burglars and fraudsters loose all off their money rights (no fancy lawyers, no money, no house, no possesions).

So this guy to whom you alluded earlier should have lost all his fundamental human rights at the time of the original conviction, including the right to a "fancy lawyer," and the right to appeal against his sentence?

[judge56988]

The most basic human right, is the right to be able to live one's life with all the basic requirements. This includes access to all things that are required for living: clean water, clean air, and a safe food supply.

What's the next human right on the list?

So if you lived in a military dictatorship that provided all its citizens with these three things, you'd be OK with that?
I'm not that familiar with the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but are any of those things mentioned?

Surely clean water, air and a food supply are things that a society produces for itself by developing processes to, for example, purify a water supply? It also involves society working together to develop agriculture and it also depends on where in the world that society develops. Many parts of the world do not have a suitable climate to grow crops and are too arid to provide enough water. If people live there in unsustainable numbers, are you saying that they still have a basic right to all these things? And if so, who is going to provide them and how?

Does the population of Las Vegas have a basic human right to consume all the water that they use? Do we have a right to build a city in the middle of the desert in the first place and then dam an enormous river to fill our swimming pools? What's going to happen to them when, as predicted, the water supply falls short?

[andyb]

So this guy to whom you alluded earlier should have lost all his fundamental human rights at the time of the original conviction, including the right to a "fancy lawyer," and the right to appeal against his sentence?

Yes, excluding the right to appeal. I am not saying that it is going to be right in every case (this story has already proven that), but in that murder case my ideas would not have changed the outcome, merely the sentence.

My idea of stopping people using their money to buy a fancy lawyer is really aimed at fraudsters and theives rather than murderers. Simply put, man steals £100,000 and then spends £100,000 on lawyers trying to stop him being convicted - which of course means that he is spending £100,000 of "other peoples money" to stop him being sent down - thats not right, and has happened loads of times in the past (mafia for example). Whether or not a murderer loses their right to a fancy lawyer is a bit difficult to decide - but could be done on a casy-by-case basis.


Andy

[nick705]

Yes, excluding the right to appeal. I am not saying that it is going to be right in every case (this story has already proven that), but in that murder case my ideas would not have changed the outcome, merely the sentence.

They would have changed the outcome, because if your ideas had been put into practice, he'd still be rotting in jail for a crime he didn't commit. Assuming of course he wasn't dead, having lost the right to life amongst all the other rights you say he didn't deserve, as a result of his wrongful conviction.

Although you've backtracked from "lose all rights" to "lose all rights excluding the right to appeal," that one right you now condescend to allow him would be a bit useless without competent legal representation, wouldn't it?

My idea of stopping people using their money to buy a fancy lawyer is really aimed at fraudsters and theives rather than murderers. Simply put, man steals £100,000 and then spends £100,000 on lawyers trying to stop him being convicted - which of course means that he is spending £100,000 of "other peoples money" to stop him being sent down - thats not right, and has happened loads of times in the past (mafia for example). Whether or not a murderer loses their right to a fancy lawyer is a bit difficult to decide - but could be done on a casy-by-case basis

So alleged murderers are allowed decent lawyers, alleged fraudsters can only have crap ones? And how would this be decided on a "case-by-case" basis? A phone-in poll of Sun readers? Why bother with lawyers at all? Or even a trial?

Your arguments are completely illogical and inconsistent, and I think you know it...