Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    One assumes prisoners have the right to not be locked up like everyone else? If so, do you want to be one to let these poeple out?

    I personally think numerous rights such as that one are forfetied when you destroy other peoples lives by mudering, raping and thieving from innocent people.
    Yes, some rights are taken away, such as the one you mentioned. They are taken away to protect the public, not simply for a punishment imo.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    No. This comes down to punishment vs rehabilitation so I guess you already knew where I would fall on this
    Does it though? If it were that simple we'd have just proposed whipping prisoners so they don't want to be put back inside. (which btw is definitely not on the cards, just in case anyone starts to wonder :lol:)

    Most of the responses so far suggest that human rights are protected solely by the Human rights act - if so, surely beatings, degradation, humiliation and such would have happened pre 1998?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in all the terms of the Human Rights Act, however for consistency's sake I shall be opposed to this bill - you cannot have one set of human rights for one set of humans and none for another. Makes no sense.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Yes, some rights are taken away, such as the one you mentioned. They are taken away to protect the public, not simply for a punishment imo.
    Now, now, if it was to protect the public we wouldnt let them out again, since we know how high reoffending rates are.

    And in any case, you still agree that human rights cant be for everyone.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Prisoners are in prison for a reason! I think this is an excellent proposition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Does it though? If it were that simple we'd have just proposed whipping prisoners so they don't want to be put back inside. (which btw is definitely not on the cards, just in case anyone starts to wonder :lol:)

    Most of the responses so far suggest that human rights are protected solely by the Human rights act - if so, surely beatings, degradation, humiliation and such would have happened pre 1998?
    What, specifically, is the point of this Bill then, I mean, what are you removing, rights-wise?

    I'm actually quite curious as to what you would try to do with a Bill with such a risqué title...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Where exactly does it say that we don't consider prisoners as human beings?

    Of course they are. And they should have human rights, just as they did prior to 1998. Just not the bizarre concept of Human Rights they do now, that the law-abiding majority still seem to be denied.

    The Human Rights Act is one of the most inappropriately named and misused pieces of legislation ever.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Human beings have no rights, but many duties.
    Every human being is under an absolute moral duty to look after those older, younger or less capable than he or she is.
    By refusing to claim our human rights, and by selflessly, heroically, continually discharging our human duties - day in, day out, until we die from exhaustion - we put up two fingers to such as Joseph Emmanuel Sieyes and Maximillien Isodore Robespierre, who invented the whole pernicious concept of "Les doits de l'homme" during the French Revolution.
    Robespierre believed that the perfect society could be created here on earth, by the simple expedient of executing the imperfect. The perfect society exists only in heaven, but by the unremitting discharge of our human duties we can create a pale shadow of that perfect society here on earth.
    So, let us hear no more about non-existent human rights. As General Robert E. Lee put it, in a letter to his son Rooney, "Of all the words in the English language, there is none more sublime than duty."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is lazy and really, really stupid.

    People thought mine and Mike's bill was a joke. This is a piss-take. You cannot deny and in some cases remove the right to appeals for compensation. No system is infallible and all penal systems in civilised nations must have a system of appeal.

    Unless fundamental changes are made to this bill, with all appropriate clauses, I will be totally unable to support it.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    Where exactly does it say that we don't consider prisoners as human beings?

    Of course they are. And they should have human rights, just as they did prior to 1998. Just not the bizarre concept of Human Rights they do now, that the law-abiding majority still seem to be denied.

    The Human Rights Act is one of the most inappropriately named and misused pieces of legislation ever.
    I agree, prisoners would still be subject to basic common law rules on human rights.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elli_emc)
    What, specifically, is the point of this Bill then, I mean, what are you removing, rights-wise?

    I'm actually quite curious as to what you would try to do with a Bill with such a risqué title...
    Ah if only you could but see into our sub-forum :rofl:

    The point is primarily to protect the public by withdrawing the requirement for them to compensate prisoners for being, well, a prisoner, which by its very definition involves having some of your human rights revoked.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Ah if only you could but see into our sub-forum :rofl:

    The point is primarily to protect the public by withdrawing the requirement for them to compensate prisoners for being, well, a prisoner, which by its very definition involves having some of your human rights revoked.
    Evidence of such cases please?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobbieC)
    This is lazy and really, really stupid.

    People thought mine and Mike's bill was a joke. This is a piss-take. You cannot deny and in some cases remove the right to appeals for compensation. No system is infallible and all penal systems in civilised nations must have a system of appeal.

    Unless fundamental changes are made to this bill, with all appropriate clauses, I will be totally unable to support it.
    Remove their right to appeal for compensation - compensation for what?

    When you say appeal - do you mean their right to appeal their sentence? This doesn't remove that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another Tory bill with no analysis and argument to go with it - leaving people confused of their motives. Well done, guys.

    Onto the content of the bill. Which parts specifically of the human rights act do you have trouble with. Why do prisoners lose this rights? I suspect someone has been reading BBC News and the fact that these terror suspects cannot be deported. They should either be charged, or let free. If they are guilty, then they will be found as such in a court of law, until then they are innocent but accused men.

    Also, while I don't agree that the state gives you rights, or in positive rights in general, to have one set of rights for one and another set of rights for another in horrible, as JakePearson so rightly (no pun intended ) pointed out.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elli_emc)
    Evidence of such cases please?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...y-release.html

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3944...ation_payouts/
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ghts-breach.do
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7937768.stm

    etc
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Prisoners forfeit their right to human rights by committing crimes against the rest of humanity. Until they are ready to be part of the civilised world again, they are stripped of their human rights as much as necessary and reissued with a bill of 'prisoners rights'. Which entitles them to much less than full human rights.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    But surely we'd still be bound by the ECHR? What's the point?

    Just on the basis of this bill...no, just no.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Another Tory bil with no analysis and argument to go with it - leaving people confused of their motives. Well done, guys.
    Please get yourself away from this ridiculous notion that all bills need to have analysis and argument with them. It's pedantic and I'm not entirely sure where you got it into your head that bills need to have that accompany them.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    Now, now, if it was to protect the public we wouldnt let them out again, since we know how high reoffending rates are.

    And in any case, you still agree that human rights cant be for everyone.
    Well (unlike you it seems) I believe that people can be rehabilitated. I introduced a bill some time ago that I think would have reduced those reoffending rates. I think that rehabilitation is needed, not simply taking away rights for what seems like no reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Please get yourself away from this ridiculous notion that all bills need to have analysis and argument with them. It's pedantic and I'm not entirely sure where you got it into your head that bills need to have that accompany them.
    Probably the same place he got the idea that there's a convention to provide full costings to each and every bill? In any case, it would, in this case, be helpful to identify which areas of the Human Rights Act that you feel you have a problem with. Do you also have a problem with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to which we are signatories?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.