Turn on thread page Beta

B270 - Prisoner's Rights Withdrawal Bill watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Where their human rights have been broken it is the fault of the person who broke those rights, in this case often the state, not on the law that gives them those rights.
    So we shouldn't pass this bill because it'd step on the rights of the HRA? :p:

    I know what your saying, but this bill doesn't give people any more right to abuse a prisoner's human rights - what do you think a prison guard (or, the state) could do after passing this bill, that he couldn't do before?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    So we shouldn't pass this bill because it'd step on the rights of the HRA? :p:

    I know what your saying, but this bill doesn't give people any more right to abuse a prisoner's human rights - what do you think a prison guard (or, the state) could do after passing this bill, that he couldn't do before?
    Well if it will do nothing (I will look into it more tomorrow when I have the time) why are you trying to remove it? Surely then they could simply sue for their other rights being broken under the other laws?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Where their human rights have been broken it is the fault of the person who broke those rights, in this case often the state, not on the law that gives them those rights.
    Seconded.

    (Original post by HARRY PUTAH)
    .
    Rights are rights.

    Take the maxim: "I will take revenge on those who have hurt those near and dear to me".

    Universalise it - what would society be like if we could ignore the rules when we felt passionately about something enough?

    Personally I would have no desire to live in such a society.

    If a law court judges that someone's rights have been violated whilst in the care of the state, then they are due compensation, in my opinion.

    Judges aren't (well, the majority of them aren't) blind, deaf and completely oblivious to where compensation money comes from. There clearly have to be reasons for their granting compensation - the violation of their rights.

    As one of the reports cited earlier said - hardly any claims come to compensation.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Well if it will do nothing (I will look into it more tomorrow when I have the time) why are you trying to remove it? Surely then they could simply sue for their other rights being broken under the other laws?
    Of course they could. But they couldn't sue for having their human rights breached, unless an offence was commited in the process.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    It annoys me when people say they are so easy. They are not. It's as simple as that. That really isn't the point imo though. Imo they are not there to be punished, they are there to protect the public and to be rehabilitated.
    Explain how Xbox 360's, televisions, hot food and internet access isn't easy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    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.
    So your argument essentially dehumanises criminals, without discrimination relating to their offence?

    Need you not go further and separate rapists from petty thieves?

    I think this bill needs work if it's going to be taken in any way seriously. Can't have taken 40 seconds to slap this together. Honestly...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Because society has given you these civil liberties in order for you to live your life. If you however violate the rules society then imposes, you are therefore trying to act outside of societies borders, therefore you lose the rights that society gives you.
    Well that just raises the question of whether human rights are just a social construction or whether they're part of natural law, which is an interesting question in and of itself which you've completely brushed over. What you're saying appears to be some version of social contract theory which I don't necessarily buy into. You've definitely broken the law - do you think you deserve any rights?

    Comprendeh senor?
    lulz.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    That has **** all to do with human rights then. You don't suspend human rights on that basis. You leave it up to the judgement of the criminal justice system to decide.
    The criminal justice system is bound by the HRA though.
    It's the compensation as a result of the HRA that we're concerned about, not other forms of compensation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Smack)
    Explain how Xbox 360's, televisions, hot food and internet access isn't easy.
    Because you're locked up. Its phycological as much as anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    The criminal justice system is bound by the HRA though.
    It's the compensation as a result of the HRA that we're concerned about, not other forms of compensation.
    It is still subject to interpretation, though. But pray tell if prisons are as easy as Smack suggests they are why is it, then, that we have cases of prisoners being granted compensation for infringement of their human rights? IF a prison is stocked with xboxes, broadband, sky tv, and so on why do they need it? Presumably the judge is awarding compensation for a reason far more complex than "human rights" violations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It is still subject to interpretation, though.
    Presumably the judge is awarding compensation for a reason far more complex than "human rights" violations.
    Amen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It is still subject to interpretation, though. But pray tell if prisons are as easy as Smack suggests they are why is it, then, that we have cases of prisoners being granted compensation for infringement of their human rights? IF a prison is stocked with xboxes, broadband, sky tv, and so on why do they need it? Presumably the judge is awarding compensation for a reason far more complex than "human rights" violations.
    I think it went something like -

    Prisoner 1 being given compensation for not being allowed a TV. Everyone allowed a tv.
    Prisoner 2 being given compensation for not being allowed an xbox. Everyone allowed an Xbox.
    Prisoner 3 being given compensation for not being allowed Sky. Everyone allowed Sky.

    And so on.

    :lol: Well perhaps not so clear cut as that, but you know what I mean?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    I think it went something like -

    Prisoner 1 being given compensation for not being allowed a TV. Everyone allowed a tv.
    Prisoner 2 being given compensation for not being allowed an xbox. Everyone allowed an Xbox.
    Prisoner 3 being given compensation for not being allowed Sky. Everyone allowed Sky.

    And so on.

    :lol: Well perhaps not so clear cut as that, but you know what I mean?
    So we dehumanise those that we are trying to rehabilitate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is this done to appease Colonel Waffingdon of the home counties?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    but you know what I mean?
    I'm afraid I don't. I do think that the Conservatives have done a UKIP and reduced a massively complex situation to a rather meaningless attack on a quite important piece of legislation. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained this morning, "Any government would tamper with it at its peril." Now, what do the TSR Conservatives know that the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is an argument that the criminal justice system is too soft on prisoners, this isn't the solution.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Because you're locked up. Its phycological as much as anything.
    So?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    I'm afraid I don't. I do think that the Conservatives have done a UKIP and reduced a massively complex situation to a rather meaningless attack on a quite important piece of legislation. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained this morning, "Any government would tamper with it at its peril." Now, what do the TSR Conservatives know that the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't?
    All hail the gleaming beacon of wisdom that is Nick Clegg:p:

    Well, what I said was in jest tbf - I'm fairly sure it wasn't like that regarding xboxes and Tvs etc. What I meant was I'm sure compensation claims started off fairly simple, and progressed to more and more complex things as prisoner rights lawyers ran out of simple things to sue for compensation under the HRA.

    I think I'm pretty much in agreement with this - http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

    And that would still apply unless I'm mistaken.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elli_emc)
    So we dehumanise those that we are trying to rehabilitate?
    Not at all. I was using that as a sort of analogy.
    Prisoners will still be entitled to all those things, my response to Adorno above highlights what I meant.
    Offline

    19
    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 rights do you want to take away, that the HR Act 1998 provides? What would this bill actually change?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 21, 2010
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

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.