B270 - Prisoner's Rights Withdrawal Bill Watch

This discussion is closed.
elli_emc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#101
Report 8 years ago
#101
Never mind.
0
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#102
Report 8 years ago
#102
(Original post by Drogue)
What rights do you want to take away, that the HR Act 1998 provides? What would this bill actually change?
It'd block prisoner's rights to compensation for any contravention of the HRA whilst they were still a prisoner, unless the contravention was also a criminal offence in which case they'd be entitled to press charges and sue for compensation just like any other person. Their rights would still be protected by http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html as far as I'm aware.
0
Adorno
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 8 years ago
#103
(Original post by Indievertigo)
And that would still apply unless I'm mistaken.
The ECHR would still apply, but you realise the purpose of the HRA was to "bring rights home". It is a bill that was designed to enable British citizens to enjoy the legal protections of the ECHR without having to recourse to the European Court system. As a eurosceptic conservative, I would have thought that your desire to repatriate British rights from Europe would have led you into agreement with the fundamental principles of the HRA. Nothing, therefore, is to be gained from this other than British citizens being forced to go to the European courts to contest their rights as defined by the ECHR.

Fancy being the party that does that?
0
Drogue
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#104
Report 8 years ago
#104
So this whole thing is about compensation for, to quote the BBC article linked, "injuries, assaults and medical negligence"? Surely if we lock someone up and force them to stay in a prison, we have a duty to look after them - ensure they have food and water and access to medicine, etc. We sentence prisoners to a loss of liberty, we don't sentence them to medical mistreatment, injury and assault. In fact corporal punishment is illegal in British law. When it occurs because the prison service didn't do their job properly, I think prisoners should be compensated. How else do you provide an incentive for prisons to treat prisoners within the law?

Edit: I've just seen Indie's post:

(Original post by Indievertigo)
It'd block prisoner's rights to compensation for any contravention of the HRA whilst they were still a prisoner, unless the contravention was also a criminal offence in which case they'd be entitled to press charges and sue for compensation just like any other person. Their rights would still be protected by http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html as far as I'm aware.
So what could they sue for now that they couldn't if we pass this? I would assume something needs to be an offence for them to be able to sue someone already?
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#105
Report 8 years ago
#105
Hmm, not a huge fan of this.
0
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#106
Report 8 years ago
#106
(Original post by Drogue)
So this whole thing is about compensation for, to quote the BBC article linked, "injuries, assaults and medical negligence"? Surely if we lock someone up and force them to stay in a prison, we have a duty to look after them - ensure they have food and water and access to medicine, etc. We sentence prisoners to a loss of liberty, we don't sentence them to medical mistreatment, injury and assault. In fact corporal punishment is illegal in British law. When it occurs because the prison service didn't do their job properly, I think prisoners should be compensated. How else do you provide an incentive for prisons to treat prisoners within the law?

Edit: I've just seen Indie's post:


So what could they sue for now that they couldn't if we pass this? I would assume something needs to be an offence for them to be able to sue someone already?
Not at all, injuries, assaults and medical negligence would all still be situations in which a prisoner is entitled to compensation - I don't believe it's the HRA which is used as a basis to sue in those cases.
0
elli_emc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 8 years ago
#107
(Original post by Indievertigo)
Not at all, injuries, assaults and medical negligence would all still be situations in which a prisoner is entitled to compensation - I don't believe it's the HRA which is used as a basis to sue in those cases.
When is the HRA used as a basis then?

The examples cited are examples of the above, as far as I could tell...
0
smalltownboy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#108
Report 8 years ago
#108
It seems that you lot are angry at the "soft touch" nature of prisons and have come up with this as a fudging solution. Bizarre.
0
sconzey
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#109
Report 8 years ago
#109
(Original post by JakePearson)
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.
Basically, this.
0
PlaceboPost
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#110
Report 8 years ago
#110
The argument that 'prisoners are human too' isn't that in touch with reality.

As punishment for their crimes, convicts are stripped of most basic freedoms, from freedom of choice; freedom to choose what they wear, what they eat and where they go, to being forced to live in a specific location. The fact that their access to media and the outside world in general is restricted also means that they pretty much lose total freedom of speech.

Sure, prisoners are, of course, still the same species, but if human beings are entitled to a list of rights, rights which convicts do not receive, then that means that either our society already views them as inhuman, or our society is at least treating them as inhuman.

In other words, sure, prisoners are still homo sapiens, but that doesn't mean they're treated as humans. In that sense, anyone who's against this bill because it doesn't treat all humans as equal, should also have a problem with prisons and the judicial system itself.

A convict is not equal to an innocent, because an innocent has far more freedom in almost all areas of their life.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - a judicial system is vital to keep order in society. In fact, I'm sure many would argue that law and order are vital for a society to even exist. But it also means that convicts will never be equal to innocents.

And, again, that's not a bad thing - if you commit a crime, you are essentially accepting the possible consequences of that crime. Murderers and rapists should indeed be seperated from innocents. But, still, in order to seperate criminals from innocents, you have to treat them that way.

So, my poorly explained point is; anyone who believes that prisoners should be treated as equal human beings, has a problem with the idea of jail, and the judicial system, not with this particular bill.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#111
Report 8 years ago
#111
(Original post by Jangrafess)
Okay, justify this filth ffs.
I've been taking a back seat in the Conservatives due to my recently hectic schedule, so whilst this was properly submitted as a Conservative bill - I, the party leader, will not defend or justify it in any way, shape or form, much less vote for it.

Whilst it might be trying to do something reasonable, this is an unreasonable way of doing it.
0
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#112
Report 8 years ago
#112
What people have over looked is that the TSR Conservatives are just removing prisoners abilities to use the human rights act. That doesn't stop them having human rights does it? Or do human rights only exist because of that piece of paper?
0
Jangrafess
Badges: 16
#113
Report 8 years ago
#113
Does having an Xbox and access to Sky television mean you have an easy life? Really? I would have thought that being locked up, taken away from your life and put into a cell for the majority of the day without access to your friends, family and social life is a pretty hefty punishment and for me that's what prison does rather than taking any a few small carnal pleasures. I'd far rather be out of prison with my friends, with my girlfriend, with my family, eating food when I want to, having sex when I want to (:sexface:), going dahn the pub wiv Baz and the lads and suchlike. The fact that there's an Xbox in my room after x years in prison or in a common room or wherever it is really doesn't make up for that. So to sit there and whinge that a prisoner has such a luxury is missing the point in a Pearl Harbor-esque manner. Team America did teach us something, tbf.

There's a fundamental difference between standard of living and quality of life, and no amount of sky TV and computer game consoles will make up for the psychological affects of being locked away from your life. I can't support this bill, because it does dehumanise the human, and simply being homo sapiens isn't human enough for me.

The argument 'what if a man raped your wife and your kids then killed them' is a ******* silly one, because the victim of such a crime should not be the person to be in charge of the revenge or punishment for that crime. It is imperative that we depersonalise these situations. Of course I'd want to kill that person and trample on any chance of them having a normal life. Does that make it right for me to do so? No, it doesn't.

This is a silly, rushed out bill that ignores a lot of the realities of human life, whether or not you sit around adding BBCode to capitalise and embolden the H and R in human rights.
b-u-b-s
Badges: 0
#114
Report 8 years ago
#114
This is insane! Prisoners are human beings and should therefore be protected by the Human Rights Act. And sure, they've committed crimes, but not all criminals are bad people. Some are trying to rehabilitate themselves and who knows how many have been victims of unjust persecution? This is basically how England is going to start stripping away our rights, starting with prisoners and gradually moving up until we find ourselves without any rights at all and no idea how it happened. At least that's how I feel. Little bit scared now, are we soon going to be seeing an English Guantanamo bay?
0
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#115
Report 8 years ago
#115
(Original post by b-u-b-s)
This is insane! Prisoners are human beings and should therefore be protected by the Human Rights Act. And sure, they've committed crimes, but not all criminals are bad people. Some are trying to rehabilitate themselves and who knows how many have been victims of unjust persecution? This is basically how England is going to start stripping away our rights, starting with prisoners and gradually moving up until we find ourselves without any rights at all and no idea how it happened. At least that's how I feel. Little bit scared now, are we soon going to be seeing an English Guantanamo bay?
Ever heard of Belmarsh prison?
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#116
Report 8 years ago
#116
(Original post by Teaddict)
What people have over looked is that the TSR Conservatives are just removing prisoners abilities to use the human rights act. That doesn't stop them having human rights does it? Or do human rights only exist because of that piece of paper?
This is kind of a good point, but not for the reason you think it is. The HR Act enshrines the ECHR into British law so that recourse to Strasbourg isn't necessary. If you repeal the HRA then prisoners will just go for much more expensive litigation through the Court of Human Rights.

As for human rights existing just because of a piece of paper - well, yes, if you believe in human rights you believe they're an objective moral fact that exist outside of legal codes, but if human rights aren't protected by a country's legal code then in terms of the application of human rights it's all a bit of a moot point.
0
Billinge1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#117
Report 8 years ago
#117
(Original post by b-u-b-s)
This is insane! Prisoners are human beings and should therefore be protected by the Human Rights Act. And sure, they've committed crimes, but not all criminals are bad people. Some are trying to rehabilitate themselves and who knows how many have been victims of unjust persecution? This is basically how England is going to start stripping away our rights, starting with prisoners and gradually moving up until we find ourselves without any rights at all and no idea how it happened. At least that's how I feel. Little bit scared now, are we soon going to be seeing an English Guantanamo bay?
By "stripping away OUR rights"? Are you a prisoner? Well, if not, I doubt it's valid that you make a huge slippery slpoe argument like that.

As has been said throughout this thread; the idea of the bill is not to condone violoence, and it would only regress England to pre-1998. Before 1998 we did NOT have an English Guantanamo and it is insulting to have such a comparison point.
0
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#118
Report 8 years ago
#118
(Original post by Gremlins)
This is kind of a good point, but not for the reason you think it is. The HR Act enshrines the ECHR into British law so that recourse to Strasbourg isn't necessary. If you repeal the HRA then prisoners will just go for much more expensive litigation through the Court of Human Rights.

As for human rights existing just because of a piece of paper - well, yes, if you believe in human rights you believe they're an objective moral fact that exist outside of legal codes, but if human rights aren't protected by a country's legal code then in terms of the application of human rights it's all a bit of a moot point.
Explain to me my reasoning then?
0
Billinge1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#119
Report 8 years ago
#119
(Original post by L i b)
I've been taking a back seat in the Conservatives due to my recently hectic schedule, so whilst this was properly submitted as a Conservative bill - I, the party leader, will not defend or justify it in any way, shape or form, much less vote for it.

Whilst it might be trying to do something reasonable, this is an unreasonable way of doing it.
*applause and bows*
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#120
Report 8 years ago
#120
(Original post by Teaddict)
Explain to me my reasoning then?
I just did. Repealing the HRA won't have any affect on human rights law because Britain is signed up to the ECHR.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (108)
19.78%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (222)
40.66%
Nope, not that interesting (216)
39.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed