Terrorist/criminal human rights

I don't see why permanent castration at the very least can't happen in these kind of clear-cut cases. IN modern times, with DNA etc, why we continue to pay to keep scum like the Yorkshire Ripper and Dennis Nilsen alive is beyond me.

This "person" forfeit his right to any kind of life after this act. I expect some other prisoner will off him soon enough and save us some money.

Compassion my arse - PC's been too far gone for years.

His rights were considered in that he had a trial, and sentence, according to the law.

Do you want to kill him? If it were legal, would you kill him? If so how?

A way of reducing cost would be to supply suicide pills to the lifer (after a suitable period of time in prison) - West and Shipman did the public a service - although it would have been better if Shipman had lasted a few weeks later.

Do you assume then that suicide is an admission of guilt and an act of contrition?

Or might it be a way of ending the unendurable torment of a life of confinement unjustly, in the prisoners view, imposed?

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Read this and explain to me how you could possibly feel so inclined to consider the rights of this scum. I don't think I could, and to be honest, I wouldn't want anyone else to either.

Ok, I read that and now I'll explain how I could possibly consider the rights of that scum.

I am rather painfully aware of my own shortcomings. I have not been able to live a blameless life and there are choices I have made which I later regretted and about which I felt shameful.

When I read about child abusers and murderers, and look through the pages of history, I see much to be ashamed of in the human condition. Among the most flagrant abuses of human rights through the ages (thanks John Hospers...) have been committed by governments acting in their official capacity. Over long and painful centuries civilised nations evolved a method for dealing with those elements of the human condition that fell below a well defined threshold - this is the criminal justice system. The beauty of it (and I do find it beautiful) is that it allows the state to act on behalf of a victim and removes those with an interest in the outcome of the process from any decision making capacity with regard to that process. This removal of interested parties from decision making capacity is part of the principle of "natural justice".

So, all of these elements of a civilised criminal justice system are principles. I have taken a great interest in these principles because constitutional and public/administrative law is something I find fascinating.

For most of the last three years I have had personal experience of the criminal justice system attempting to act on my behalf. I was a complainant in a matter involving my stepfather - along with two other members of my family. I was a witness for the Crown and my stepfather was jailed upon being convicted in the Nelson District Court in October of last year on fourteen of fifteen charges (he was acquitted of a single minor charge of the fifteen counts, many of which were representative.) Through almost all of the three years it took to get the matter to Court I was faced with the choice of either applying the high principles I believed in to my very personal situation - or descending into the morass of my more base instincts for revenge that I had trusted the Crown to act on when I made the complaint. I chose to hold true to my beliefs about the criminal justice system and to be patient.

I believe that the fact that the State does not brutalise criminals allows me the opportunity to be a more decent human being. I do not believe that I live in a sick society. I tend more to the view that, like it or not, I am a functioning, contributing part of any sickness in my society. Were I to stand by and allow the State to descend to the level of my own baser instincts then I would become a lesser human being and would eventually lose all of the benefits that living in a civilised country affords me.

And that is about the most civilised contribution this thread has seen.

Well said Deane. I was dismayed to read the "Crap Terrorists" thread this morning, and meant to write in your defence later. By the time I got back from work, the thread was a little more balanced, so I abstained. In any case, I see from the above post that you hardly need my help.

Still, a few random thoughts before I go...

My position has nothing to do with political correctness.

Terrorists want us to abandon our values; it's the only victory they can realistically hope to achieve.

Law restores balance, and brings closure; revenge is open-ended and brings nothing but more strife.

Is our aim short term catharsis, or a long term solution to the problem?

I don't know what I would say to someone who had lost a loved one in a terrorist attack. When principles collide with raw human experience, there are no rules for negotiating the wreckage.

Enough - I've already said more than I meant to!

quote:

... explain to me how you could possibly feel so inclined to consider the rights of this scum. I don't think I could, and to be honest, I wouldn't want anyone else to either.

I stand by my opening post apart from that bit...I wish I hadn't said something so stupid and I regret it. I still don't know how society can handle someone like this though.

I take a lot from your powerful post Deane, and I appreciate your courage to share that insight.

As I have said on the other thread, and in the opening post of this thread before my final stupid remark, my viewpoint was in the context of the immediate need to prevent further bloodshed while that opportunity still existed. It was never about the total removal of rights. It was always that the authorities appear to be shackled at the time when they most need to be able to get information that could make a difference.

It can only be a matter of time before the terrorists attempt some sort of dirty nuclear type of bomb or something equally horrendous, and one wonders just where the rights of the perpertrators of such a monstrous act will be when placed alongside the rights of unconnected and random people who happen to fall the victims. The balancing act is something that, with some excursions from the true path of decency and civilised values, has been honed in UK for a very long time while dealing with the terrorism of the IRA.

What of course is not on is fixing evidence to get a conviction to placate public opinion, but I think the security services in the UK will already have a very fair idea of the necessary steps to take, even if no guarantee can be given for complete success in countering the threat from the merchants of terror. To guarantee this would require complete abandonment of all personal freedoms, which may well be the terroiststs' aim. At least with most older style terroists there was some indication of what they were trying to achieve, by such ugly means. In this sense their aims seem to be nothing short of pure anarchy. There no possible starting point to sorting out how to solve their problems because of this, or knowing whatever could be done about solving them. Whitelaw and Major set the gound seeds for Mr Blair's biggest success as PM, in forging a general peace settlement for Nothern Ireland, but what are the demands of the current terrorists?

I don't even think it is a fine balance. We are not dealing with people who take their responsibilities to society nearly so seriously as some people take these terrorists rights to carry on to a point where they succeed in their acts of odious terror.

In many ways one wonders just why for example they should have bombed the train in Spain. What ever did Spain do to diserve that? There is no safety from them, anywhere, and I sure that all the civilised world will face the threat as things go on. No one is excempt when dealing with madmen.

Fredrik

The best efforts of the media are trying to persuade us that we are living through a period unprecedented in it's dangerousness. There is an implication that Islamic terrorists are qualitivley distinguished from previous groups, like the IRA, in their complete irrationality.

Those of us who actually lived through the mainland bombing campaign in the 70's will remember the atmosphere of suspicion and hostility manipulated against the Irish community. Comments about an 'Irish mentality' being completely irreconcilable with British democracy, innocent people being beaten up and calls to hunt down the terrorists who had forsaken any claim to human rights.

Regardless of one's opinion about that particular conflict we are, hopefully, united in our condemnation of terrorists taking innocent human life. However, the atmosphere of retribution at all costs and damn human rights made it so much easier for corrupt policeman to arrest and frame completely innocent people. Remember, the Birmingham 6 were absolutely guilty beyond doubt due to forensic evidence until some bright spark realised that the chemicals which were found on their skin were also present on playing cards, which they had been playing.

In such cases, what information would have been extracted under torture? Applying excruciating physical or psychological pain will usually result in people talking. If the person possesses no pertinent information, they will simply tell the torturer what they want to hear. If the person is a highly motivated fanatic, they will resist and/or lie. By the time it takes to verify the information in the 'ticking bomb' scenario, it will probably be too late.

Torture is notoriously unreliable as a method of obtaining intelligence. A desire for retribution born of anger will produce inevitable miscarraiges of justice and a society that is prepared to apply the concept of human rights in an arbitrary fashion risks ceding the very morality that it condemns the terrorists for disregarding.

The concept of extending human rights to all, even though we may rightly abhor the actions of some members, is not wooly PC crap, it is the foundation of a civilised society. If we lose that then the terrorists will, indeed, have suceeded in destroying us.

Wow!!!! That's a huge jump from being free to "handle the terroists in the most productive way" (jcs quote on the other thread), to torture and "Applying excruciating physical or psychological pain ". Obviously under those circumstances someone is going to say whatever they are required to say, true or not. Where did all that come from?

I'm not sure how we have come to look at actual methods of extracting information rather than just dealing with the general issue of rights at the immediate time of capture, because I certainly have no idea of methods used by authorities, but as jcs has suggested, I am sure they have concluded that brute force isn't the best way.
My point was that the authorities could move quickly in an emegency situation without having to be shackled by things like a lawyer being present, or having to watch the clock with regard to questioning, or needing search warrants when every second counts. Maybe the system is slicker and more efficient than I imagine it to be, but I just have trouble accepting that innocent people could be dying and could be rescued in one location, while in the other we are respecting the criminal's right to remain silent. Do you see what I mean? Surely that isn't advocating torture! We seem to be talking about extremes without discussing the question that I was really asking; are we so scared of the human rights issue that it hampers investigations? We often hear that some communities plead harassment at every call. Maybe sometimes it's justified, maybe sometimes it's not, but it's an obsticle that causes problems. How do we deal with it?

I accept that there is a slippery slope, but surely that's another issue entirely? Can't we just sort out the right and wrong of the situation first?

I still can't work out how the terrorists who hijacked a plane that went into Stansted airport a few years ago were given the right to stay in this country, as free people.
You can't argue that hijacking a plane isn't terrorism & criminal. It just seems as if they were rewarded, not punished or repatriated.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Matt.

Matt - As I said yesterday, the first wave of political correctness is over and the whole matter is being looked at again. Gordon Brown is proposing a written constitution for the first time exactly for this reason and I guess we'll see the result in a couple of years time.

[QUOTE]Where did all that come from?

From the general implication that rights and the rule of law should be suspended in certain circumstances. A situation that, as you acknowledge, is the thin end of the wedge.

I'm not sure how we have come to look at actual methods of extracting information rather than just dealing with the general issue of rights at the immediate time of capture, because I certainly have no idea of methods used by authorities, but as jcs has suggested, I am sure they have concluded that brute force isn't the best way.

'Fraid not, what has been happening in Guantanamo bay these last few years? Ok, it's the U.S. but theses actions were fully supported by the Blair regime.

we are respecting the criminal's right to remain silent. Do you see what I mean? Surely that isn't advocating torture!

Of course not, but in order to save lives in the scenario you describe, how are the authorities to persude a recalcitrant suspect to talk? The other hugely important point is, an innocent suspect may well have been arrested due to the massive pressure to find and charge someone due to the outrageous nature of the crime. In this situation you have the abolition of citizens rights in the UK. It may be argued that arrests follow months of painstaking intelligence. Unfortunately, there have been too many mistakes made to maintain my faith in this regard.

Can't we just sort out the right and wrong of the situation first?

The rights and wrongs of dealing with terrorism are inseperable from the wider issue of according rights and due process to all. I maintain, this is the hallmark of a free society, which is what we are defending after all.

But surely we need a place to start discussion on this, and that place is getting the principles in place first. I fully agree that it's difficult to separate the issues, but it has to be addressed in sequence. This is happening now and I was unaware of these discussions up until this week:

quote:

Wednesday July 4, 2007
The Guardian
Gordon Brown yesterday laid out proposals for "a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to parliament and the British people". Some of the ideas, such as a British bill of rights and a British constitution, are very much at the formative stage.
Mr Brown announced a consultation on a bill of rights and duties and a written constitution, changes which would transform the historic settlement of the state and would require cross-party consensus. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said the British bill of rights should replace the Human Rights Act. The green paper rejects abolishing the HRA but says it "should not necessarily be regarded as the last word on the subject". Any additions in a British bill would need to be "of real benefit to the country as a whole".

Full article

Ok, I read that and now I'll explain how I could possibly consider the rights of that scum.

Deane has crafted a very persuasive-looking argument that we should respect the rights of scum. I agree with the views that Deane has expressed in his argument. However, Deane's argument entirely misses a couple of very significant points. Let me explain.

First, it is clear that Deane has been successful with the outcome of the case he brought against his step-father, both with the guilty verdict and with the duration of the custodial sentence It is very common to find that people who have enjoyed a successful outcome to express the view that the current justice system is satisfactory. People who have not enjoyed a successful outcome often express disappointment with the system. The fact that a prosecution was unsuccessful is not always an indication that the accused is innocent. Quite often it is merely a fact that the evidence needed to convince a judge or jury was insufficient. Whilst being entirely sympathetic towards Deane with his situation (whatever that might be), I would be more impressed if the rational views expressed by Deane above had been made by someone who had been wronged by his step-father and who had been unable to secure a successful prosecution merely because there was insufficient evidence available to convince a Judge or Jury.

Second, a civilised society sets out what reasonably constitutes unacceptable behaviour, makes it clear that allegations of such unacceptable behaviour will be properly investigated and if reasonably found proven, will be punished by reasonable and clearly set out forms of punishment. It makes provision for people suspected of unacceptable behaviour to be held against their will, but only for a specified period of time without charge. It ensures that accused persons are afforded access to help with their defence. These provisions are graded to fit the crime or alleged crime.

We accept (for example) that a person accused of driving a little bit too fast will not be arrested whilst a person caught in the act of attempted murder will probably be tackled, handcuffed and restrained by several policemen during his arrest, or might even be shot dead if the police have grounds for concern about the intended victim. We also expect (for example) the police to negotiate a kidnapped release because experience tells us this usually secures a more satisfactory outcome. We have rules that say the speeding motorist will be fined (say) £60 but the would-be murderer will face time in prison.

The point that Deane is missing, is that many of us feel that these rights that we have bestowed upon scum are inappropriate for terrorist scum or those accused of terrorism. We need to establish new rights for dealing with terrorist scum, and then, as a civilised society, ensure these new rights are enforced. Whilst I wouldn't propose shooting those accused of terrorism on sight, I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with treating them in the same way as someone accused of driving at 80 mph on a UK motorway. And I would be content to have those found guilty of terrorism judicially killed rather than have them fined £60 and asked not to repeat the offence.

So to summarise my second point, we need a new set of rules for dealing with terrorists and suspected terrorists. We need to abide by these rules. I thought that this discussion was about what these new rules might be. That is the point that Deane has so far overlooked. His view would appear to be that the current rules in the UK are appropriate and must not be changed.


Cheers

Don

Don

You assume a lot in the references you have made to my views in your post.

I am not satisfied with the sentence that my stepfather received (don't know where you got the idea that I was) - nor am I happy that he served only three and a half months in jail before being released to home detention (radio anklet house-arrest).

quote:

Quite often it is merely a fact that the evidence needed to convince a judge or jury was insufficient.

"Merely"...? It is one of the very fundaments of the criminal justice system that the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The State promises to act if and only if they prove the whole of their case on the evidence of the case. When they fail to do so it is not "merely" that they failed to prove - it is usually the case that despite being able to bring huge resources in terms of manpower and expertise to bear they still couldn't prove their case against a small (in relative terms) defence.

quote:

The point that Deane is missing, is that many of us feel that these rights that we have bestowed upon scum are inappropriate for terrorist scum or those accused of terrorism. We need to establish new rights for dealing with terrorist scum, and then, as a civilised society, ensure these new rights are enforced.

The UK experienced a lot of terrorism during the IRA years. My understanding is that the UK's response to same was to suspend many of the usual rights of people accused of terrorism and make up some new rules too. How did that work out for you?

Deane

Peace came about. Fredrik

What a silly response Fredrik.

What I think Don's post makes clear is that the treatment of terrorist suspects is different from the treatment of those who are suspected of committing what are reasonably deemed lesser offences.

Thus is the Nothern Irish situation such curtailments of such normal rights as jury trial, for example, with the Diplock Courst [where no jury sat] were deemed necessary for justice to be administered in a workable fashion. No one would say that this is what most people would prefer to see in a peaceful situation, but then most people would prefer to see terrorism eliminated - at least I would think it reasonable to assume so.

I suspect that if the UK governements of the day had not seen it as necessary to change certain rules and suspend certain rights then the starting point for Mr Whitelaw's initiation of the Northern Irish Peace Settlement would not have been set, and an even greater degree of chaos would have reigned because of terrorism. Essentially it was a tough response to a tough situation. I think it it conceivable that the lastest terrorist out-break may be dealt with in similar tough fashion without undermining the basic overal right to fair administration of the law.

Without the clear and probably far more effective response than we may know for many years [when the secret papaers are released] to the IRA at the time, the conditions would not be set for the long worked for settlement of Mr Blair [his finest acheivement as PM, IMO] taking the firm foundation laid by Mr Whitelaw and Mr Major as a basis. This foundation would not have been possible without the the battle against terroism, so I stick by my view. Peace ensued as the result firstly of a tough approach to the terrorism of the IRA. Obviously that as only the begining of the end of it, but a crucial part never the less.

It would not be the first time in the Twentieth Century that a Britidsh Government took exceptional measures to counter an evil, and I think we can all be greatful that even though some actions now seem Draconian [the general internment of Germans including German Jews in Britain during WW2 for example], that such necessary measures were taken.

Those who deny this are actualy burying their heads in the sand in my view, even though it is hardly a nice thing to have to contemplate.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

The beauty of it (and I do find it beautiful) is that it allows the state to act on behalf of a victim and removes those with an interest in the outcome of the process from any decision making capacity with regard to that process. This removal of interested parties from decision making capacity is part of the principle of "natural justice

The tone of your post, including the above quote left me with the impression that you were expressing satisfaction with your criminal justice system in NZ. This is quite different from making assumptions.

"Merely"...? It is one of the very fundaments of the criminal justice system that the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The State promises to act if and only if they prove the whole of their case on the evidence of the case. When they fail to do so it is not "merely" that they failed to prove - it is usually the case that despite being able to bring huge resources in terms of manpower and expertise to bear they still couldn't prove their case against a small (in relative terms) defence.

Well, here we come to the nub of the issue. Very few cases are clear-cut. Criminals don't always co-operate by telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If they did, life would be a whole lot easier. As Andy C once said, self-confession plus a single witness isn't usually sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in a criminal case. In a civil case, we are prepared to settle on the balance of probabilities. In a criminal case we need more robust evidence so that a conviction is beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case of acts of terrorism, I would be prepared to convict on the balance of probabilities. Sentencing would be "reversible" where the conviction was secured on the balance of probabilities. I would be prepared to accept an irreversible sentence where the conviction was secured beyond reasonable doubt. The important things are that the rules must be reasonable, clear, and enforced. That includes the treatment of suspects, the accused and the convicted.

Cheers

Don

I haven't read the entire thread but would like to comment on the child murderer.

I think the trouble with 'human rights' is that that paedophile pond-scraping is considered 'human' at all. No, it is an animal, worse than an animal, and the evidence of that is its actions.

.50 bullet in the back of the head - that's all it needs.

No whining over whether it's a 'deterrant' (cause it's not), but just a good way of saving money and trying to help the poor parents feel better, cause nothing you'll ever do will ever bring that poor little girl back.

The justice system only functions for people like me, Deane and the rest of us because we actually have a concept of 'justice'.

That thing that raped and killed that little girl is clearly something else and functions on a different level from the rest of us.

Get rid of it, like you would a cancer.

joe90

Interesting post. I take it that God doesn't forgive paedophile pond-scrapings then?

quote:

Interesting post. I take it that God doesn't forgive paedophile pond-scrapings then?

He probably does.

But he also gave the rest of us the whit to arrange for that forgivness to be received sooner, rather than later.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Interesting post. I take it that God doesn't forgive paedophile pond-scrapings then?

Personally, I doubt it.