[Archived] Hang Em High

[Stuart]

Jim, when the ECHR start to promote the human rights of victims of crime BEFORE the perpetrators, then I'm all ears.

Bridger will being suing for assault and winning before long - with his case paid for by you and I. And that's after we've paid for burglars who have sued for getting injured whilst 'at work'.

I'm sure you are happy with this arrangement and somehow see it as us being 'civilised' but I'm not.

[jim mk2]

The law protects society and and provides justice for victims by putting miscreants behind bars. However, the human rights of the victims are irrelevant in this sort of judgment. This isn't about whether what a criminal did was right or wrong, this is about whether locking someone up till they die without any chance of reexamining their case is right in law, which of course it isn't.

The ECHR is the only real human rights that British citizens have because there is no bill of rights in this country. I hate to say because I love this country but America's poodle is turning into a fascist state, just like its master.

As for your second sentence are you sure you're on the right website ? Comments like that should be on Daily Mail.com.

[thenodrog]

'Human Rights' is a relatively modern concept. Mankind survived and developed progressively for countless centuries without them. I'm not suggesting that we should go back to rounding up a few ship loads of black people and bringing them to the west in chains but like most things that start out a good idea they get hijacked for all manner of skewed agenda's and vacuous causes both political and social. A noose years ago would have put a stop to this stupidity.

[jim mk2]

Yes, you're right Gordon. Let's turn the clock back 100 years, admit we are an uncivilised mob and bring back public hanging. Let's go further, auction the TV rights to the highest Murdoch - I mean bidder. Have pundits with a "swingometer" and interview members of the baying crowd. There could be some community singing beforehand. God help us.

[thenodrog]

Yes, you're right Gordon. Let's turn the clock back 100 years, admit we are an uncivilised mob and bring back public hanging. Let's go further, auction the TV rights to the highest Murdoch - I mean bidder. Have pundits with a "swingometer" and interview members of the baying crowd. There could be some community singing beforehand. God help us.

Poor argument.

[Amo]

Capital punishment changes nothing.

Case in point: Ian Brady & Myra Hindley were up to their tricks while hanging was still in effect. Wasn't a deterrent then, and certainly wouldn't be a deterrent now. See: Amurica.

[jim mk2]

Poor argument.

Poor response.

[jim mk2]

Did some reserach on this and it appears they are 50 whole-life prisoners in Britain - I'll repeat that, fifty, many of whom you could probably name.

Cameron and the Tory right know none of them will be released, but he has to throw a fish to the UKIP defectors by showing how very, very, very, very disappointed (his words, benefit of a private and Oxford education) he is that multiple childkillers will be given mansions on their release, or however this will be reported in the right-wing newspapers.

So they'll get reviewed every now and again - so what ? As Cameron and the braying clown Grayling are well aware - they'll die in prison.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I just think the whole thing is another colossal waste of taxpayers money. Do british and european politicians really have nothing better to do than argue for months and make grandiose rulings that effect about 0.00001% of criminals and not in a significant way? What would be great is if the total combined expenses that it took the doubtless many individuals involved to debate, arrive at and presumably now challenge the decision were instead put into financing harsher treatment for the thousands upon thousands of fairly serious crimes committed every year that don't result in a prison sentence and should do.

[Silencio]

Blair and his governent had scant regard for any kind of Human or Civil Rights and bill after bill focused on taking liberty from the citizen and into the hands of the security services, police, and massive private security firms such as G4S and Serco. This has continued to develop under the current Government. Thanks to our scummy media a good percentage of the British population think this is all a great idea but I'm glad the EHCR is at least supplying some checks and balances on the increasingly authoritarian British state (there is little difference between Tory and Labour).

I would bear these points in mind...

These 'lifers' would be very unlikely to get out under review.

Bringing in the right to review would not be an introduction of something 'un-British', we had this provision until 2003. Blunkett brought it in alongside the admission of heresay evidence in courts.

The EHCR may make individual decisions that seem wrong but to be overprotective of rights is much better than to have them crushed.

The European nations are against GCHQ's snooping and it could be the EHCR who one day protect citizen's rights favourably in this area.

Britian is not 'soft on crime'. No European country puts as many in jail as we do, our copying of 'the American model' is a disaster and it's a model that has no end.

What rights do Britsh citizens have without the EHCR and if we pulled out of Europe on the promise of getting fair rights, would you trust British politicians to give them to you?

[broadsword]

Why is the UK incapable of protecting the human rights of its citizens and requires the intercession of Brussels? And what is the point of reviewing their sentences when it's a foregone conclusion that release will be denied? Seems like a pointless exercise in spending tax-payers' money to fund a box-ticking jamboree.

People who have earned a whole-life tariff don't deserve even the faintest glimmer of hope that they might ever earn their release back into normal society. Some crimes are so beyond the pale as to earn permanent exclusion from it. I'll never understand why paedophiles manage to get released back into society when all that happens is that they regress back into their previous behaviour.

Yes, we are a civilised society that must aspire to ethical values above those of the criminals we seek to punish. But at the same time, we must protect society from those who continue to pose a danger to it.

[jim mk2]

Britain willingly signed up to the ECHR more than 50 years ago and it's a good job we did because citizens' (and workers') rights have been eroded by successive govts in this country to the point where Brussels often provides the only protection from an overbearing and heavy-handed state. It might be a "pointless exercise" to you but judicial mistakes do occur and some people do change for the better. The clue is in the "human rights" title - everyone is entitled to have their voice heard, even those locked up in a cell for the rest of their life.

[broadsword]

X

everyone is entitled to have their voice heard, even those locked up in a cell for the rest of their life.

In my view, Ian Brady certainly isn't. He gets off on the attention I'm sure, the evil piece of @#/?.

Whether the ruling has any practical significance or not in how the UK administers justice, and how much of this will be no more than cannon fodder for the right-wing press is up for debate.

But how can people complain of inhuman treatment when they've shown no human qualities whatsoever is beyond me.

[Amo]

But how can people complain of inhuman treatment when they've shown no human qualities whatsoever is beyond me.

Some people don't believe in retributive justice. Depriving someone of their basic human rights, no matter how foul their crime, makes our society no more civilized than the convict himself. A creed that is difficult to subscribe to when you read some of the worst cases out there, but I still can appreciate that as a point of social progressivism.

As for the cons, they always like to act the victim and exploit the system. To act otherwise would be to show signs of remorse for their crimes. People like Ian Brady and Jeremy Bamber just enjoy playing the game and trollin' the crap out of people through the courts and the media to indulge their twisted sense of self-importance. How could you expect anything less from a bunch of sociopaths?

[ABBEY]

Britain willingly signed up to the ECHR more than 50 years ago and it's a good job we did because citizens' (and workers') rights have been eroded by successive govts in this country to the point where Brussels often provides the only protection from an overbearing and heavy-handed state. It might be a "pointless exercise" to you but judicial mistakes do occur and some people do change for the better. The clue is in the "human rights" title - everyone is entitled to have their voice heard, even those locked up in a cell for the rest of their life.

are they hell ...if you murder someone you should lose all your human rights as a gimme. Bloody do gooders make me so angry.

[Silencio]

Why is the UK incapable of protecting the human rights of its citizens and requires the intercession of Brussels? And what is the point of reviewing their sentences when it's a foregone conclusion that release will be denied? Seems like a pointless exercise in spending tax-payers' money to fund a box-ticking jamboree.

People who have earned a whole-life tariff don't deserve even the faintest glimmer of hope that they might ever earn their release back into normal society. Some crimes are so beyond the pale as to earn permanent exclusion from it. I'll never understand why paedophiles manage to get released back into society when all that happens is that they regress back into their previous behaviour.

Yes, we are a civilised society that must aspire to ethical values above those of the criminals we seek to punish. But at the same time, we must protect society from those who continue to pose a danger to it.

The UK doesn't protect the human rights of it's citizens for a number of reasons IMO, here are a few...

Governments have used the 'terrorist threat' as an excuse to erode rights and liberties which we did have. This has been with the help of the scummy media.

Security companies such as G4S have given directorships and shares to top politicians which have inevitably lead to them having more and more power. Human/civil rights are no good to these companies.

The Police and Security Services continuously lobby for more and more power and politicians have been very willing to give in.

It's wise not to focus on the murders and instead think about how theoretically the EHCR could intervence if the British state continues to become more and more authoritarian. Did you ever read into how intrusive Blair's ID card system was planned to be? They weren't just a 'driving licence with a microchip'. Terrifying and I'm sure we would have been begging for the EHCR to intervene in future times if they had been forced upon the people.

[broadsword]

I'm with you there, I was 100% against the ID card scheme.

[DE.]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Was reading this earlier and it reminded me of this thread...

[thenodrog]

So they'll get reviewed every now and again - so what ? As Cameron and the braying clown Grayling are well aware - they'll die in prison.

Isn't that what I am advocating?

[thenodrog]

are they hell ...if you murder someone you should lose all your human rights as a gimme. Bloody do gooders make me so angry.

Human rights is bollux anyway. Why should humans have 'rights'? What rights do rabbits, rats, dolphins, spiders, carrots etc etc have? Yet we pompously award them to ourselves ffs! How conceited and misguided is that?

[DE.]

Unlike humans, animals don't have the capacity to be manipulative or scheming. They can be vicious and to an extent calculating, but it's generally based on a primitive need - either for hunger, thirst, amusement or survival. Animals base their actions on instinct, rather than conscious perception of the world beyond their own minds,

Humans alternatively have much more complex brains and as a result a greater capacity to conceive of plans, plots and schemes which can defraud, shame, humiliate or somehow disenfranchise each other either as individuals or groups. Human rights are designed to ensure that the human lust for power - which has repeatedly caused horrific wars, miscarriages of justice and deaths in the past - is tempered by a basic template of how we should behave towards each other. It offers a blanket form of protection for all civilised societies and provides a benchmark for nations to aspire to in terms of how Governments treat their citizens and people on the whole treat each other. The template may not be perfect but the idea behind it is completely valid and as a society we should be thankful civilisation is at a point where such an idea is generally implemented into law.

You're looking at it from a more philosophical point of view, Gordan, which I'd suggest is probably not the best way to view the idea of humans rights in the current day and age They're more like global/regional laws. Animals as sentient creatures arguably should have a wider set of laws Governing their treatment as well, but at the moment such laws are determined on a country-by-country basis.

[T.J.Newton]

Human rights is bollux anyway. Why should humans have 'rights'? What rights do rabbits, rats, dolphins, spiders, carrots etc etc have? Yet we pompously award them to ourselves ffs! How conceited and misguided is that?

I'm not sure about the human rights of carrots! But I think you need to lay of the mushrooms

[jim mk2]

Human rights is bollux anyway. Why should humans have 'rights'? What rights do rabbits, rats, dolphins, spiders, carrots etc etc have? Yet we pompously award them to ourselves ffs! How conceited and misguided is that?

About as conceited and misguided as your stated aim of avoiding paying tax and exceeding the speed limit ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Was reading this earlier and it reminded me of this thread...

Lots of myths exploded in that article. Don't tell the right-wing press though - it doesn't suit their agenda.

[Guest Norbert]

Human rights is bollux anyway. Why should humans have 'rights'? What rights do rabbits, rats, dolphins, spiders, carrots etc etc have? Yet we pompously award them to ourselves ffs! How conceited and misguided is that?

You come up with this, and yet you bang on about Muslims being less civilised with all the Shariah Law business about chopping hands off and stoning women?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

Was reading this earlier and it reminded me of this thread...

Why? On immigration the main point made against you was that there are extremely high concentrations in fairly localised areas. That article says nothing to disagree with that.

As for crime, well I trust government crime statistics about as much as I trust Shebby Singh. I was assaulted on a night out with no provocation whatsoever a few years ago and because I fought back the police dismissed my desire to press charges as pointless because it was "six of one" (actual quote). Its a lot easier reclassifying/ignoring crime than reducing it, and call me cynical but I'd be surprised if the drop is mainly down to the second.