Human Rights Convention

[Styles]

The Human Rights Convention seems to have gotten out of control. I think the idea of it was noble but it has not worked out the way it was supposed to.

 

For example all the crimanal who are able to use it, anyone able to claim it for the most stupid reasons, the afghan hijackers, terrorists and now it seems drug addicts in jail are the latest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4764597.stm

 

It seems to protect those who have violated others human rights and fly in the face of common sense in many cases.

 

I think it should be scrapped or at least modified so that it can be used for what it was concived for instead of any criminal useing it and makeing lawyers rich!

[Tom]

Well the awkward problem is that the hijackers were actually found not guilty by a procedural technicality... Were they found guilty it would be a rather different affair.

[JustMe]

The "Human Rights" convention is quite properly intended to ensure that basic human rights are not infringed and it is up to each countries government to enforce the rules.

 

It is also right and proper that anyone who considers that their human rights have been denied can seek redress in the courts....be they in the UK or in the European court. Any attempt to restrict access to justice would be wrong.

 

Now to the justice bit. Prisoners have rights and must have the freedom to make claims under the legislation. However in my view any award of compensation should be made after considering all the circumstances which in the case of drug addicts means they have commited an offence to end up in jail. As it happens I think it is wrong to withdraw methadone suddenly and the prison authorities are guilty of an infringement of the prisoners rights. However I think any compensation should be limited to reflect the prisoners own part in becoming addicted and in going to jail.

 

That said I think the system should be modified so that, in the case of the addicted prisoner, although he would not be eligable for a huge chunk of compensation PrisonsRus.com could suffer a severe financial penalty for failing to adhere to prisoners rights legislation.

 

I am not sure how the Afghan hijackers case has come about. I believed that it was British and EU policy to show no favours to hijackers no matter how good their cause was.

 

On a similar topic I am disturbed to hear rumblings from the government about limiting the compensation paid to prisoners released after time in jail with their conviction being quashed on appeal. Sounds to me like the government is taking a "well you got off but you might still be guilty" attitude which is totally wrong. Not guilty is not guilty.

 

And yes I did get a sort of left wing score on the political test once I was able to connect to it.

[McFly]

I couldn't have put it better myself JustMe.

 

That's a very reasonable and well thought view on the issue.

[jeemsie]

yup, in agreement there justme, but i wonder to what extent an infringement of human rights has occured, treatment for a self sustained drug problem is often a luxury that can be abused (but should nevertheless be upheld) i'd be thankful of the opportunity of going cold turkey and would have thought that in an extreme circumstance treatment would be provided (as in a total dependancy on the drug leading to a severe possibility of suicide when removed from the system, but it's my understanding that with such an extreme example a secure phsyciatric ward would be the option over prison depending on the offence perpetrated) you're right like, any kind of medical treatment shouldn't be stopped for whatever reason, i appreciate i don't have much of a knowledge of rehabilitation treatment but whatever decision is reached with regards to stopping such treatment should be qualified on medical grounds and i'm surprised if this wasn't the case here

 

whats this political leaning test thingy? i suspect i'd know the answer and wouldn't want to find out i'm a closet tory but anything to waste a bit of time

[Njugle]

whats this political leaning test thingy? i suspect i'd know the answer and wouldn't want to find out i'm a closet tory but anything to waste a bit of time

 

Click here for the thread about the "test thingy"

[JustMe]

I suspect that jeemsie has as little knowledge of going cold turkey as I have but hearsay evidence indicates that it is a very frightening experience.

 

Secure phsyciatric wards are where many of the prison population should be but sadly the "care in the community" scheme reduced the national total of beds to a level that means prison is often the only option available to a court other than returning people to the streets.

[jeemsie]

aye, justme, i was considering that as in a safe (controlled) environment, but no knowledge of the experience or the possible effects at all, so it's not an informed judgement, i also had in the back of my head a presumption of possible exploitation of the system, particularly within a prison environment, effectively dealing drugs on the inside, and i presume that was the reasoning behind excluding the prisoners from the treatment in the first place.

 

cheers njugle, teen the test but i have my reservations, i reckon you could add 3 points to my scores for a more realistic effect, not so much the questions but the answers were restrictive

[turrifield]

It seems to me that in the cases of prisoners getting compensation for their humanrights being compromised shows that there is a problem with the compensation culture that we live in but not with the human rights convention. I would suggest that these people have there issuse acknowlaged and the correct apologies issued but no compensation should be awarded. Compensation should only be awarded where actions have had an economic impact.