Human Rights Options

[TallDarkAndHands...]

I see that Sex Offenders want their names removed from the Sex Offenders register because it 'infringes' their human rights.

Why are we even considering spending money on legal cases like this? Does anybody in their right mind agree that they should be even given the opportunity of having there names removed???

Its getting almost bizarre this Human Rights stuff. I think I'll turn into an Axe Killer. Its my Human Right to Axe people to death. I want to Axe at least 5 people to death I dislike a year. And if you don't let me it infringes my Human Rights and I'll sue.....

[Bloggo]

I see that Sex Offenders want their names removed from the Sex Offenders register because it 'infringes' their human rights.

Why are we even considering spending money on legal cases like this? Does anybody in their right mind agree that they should be even given the opportunity of having there names removed???

Its getting almost bizarre this Human Rights stuff. I think I'll turn into an Axe Killer. Its my Human Right to Axe people to death. I want to Axe at least 5 people to death I dislike a year. And if you don't let me it infringes my Human Rights and I'll sue.....

I think that they could be removed from the Sex offenders list providing that they agree to being castrated. Other than that I see no benefit to society for these animals to be able to hide away and have a second opportunity to commit the crime again.

[Biker1]

I see that Sex Offenders want their names removed from the Sex Offenders register because it 'infringes' their human rights.

Why are we even considering spending money on legal cases like this? Does anybody in their right mind agree that they should be even given the opportunity of having there names removed???

Its getting almost bizarre this Human Rights stuff. I think I'll turn into an Axe Killer. Its my Human Right to Axe people to death. I want to Axe at least 5 people to death I dislike a year. And if you don't let me it infringes my Human Rights and I'll sue.....

I expect some will agree that it is their "human right".

As has been said before, and is the way most people think - some seem to confuse the human rights of criminals with the human rights of innocent people. (Or victims).

In this particular case what matters most - the human rights of the criminal, or the human rights of their victims that they should be named so that the likelihood of them repeating their crime is reduced.

In short, the problem with giving certain sectors of society human rights (i.e. criminals) to my mind infringes the human rights of others (i.e. their victims).
Whose human rights are more deserved and important?
I think we all know the answer.

[Biker1]

I think that they could be removed from the Sex offenders list providing that they agree to being castrated.

With or without anaesthetic?

[Andy Capp]

I see that Sex Offenders want their names removed from the Sex Offenders register because it 'infringes' their human rights.

The actual argument is that it is against people's human rights to have no appeal process in law, as is the case with 'serious' sex offenders. My view is a 'serious' sex offender is unlikely to be 'cured' and the removal from the register should only be considered IF in the future, we find some way of being certain they would not re-offend. If this case is pursued, lets hope that the appeal process is sufficiently robust to maintain the public's trust, if there is any. I also think the Human Rights Act needs some redefining.

[Richard Garvie]

I also think the Human Rights Act needs some redefining.

+1

[Bloggo]

I expect some will agree that it is their "human right".

As has been said before, and is the way most people think - some seem to confuse the human rights of criminals with the human rights of innocent people. (Or victims).

In this particular case what matters most - the human rights of the criminal, or the human rights of their victims that they should be named so that the likelihood of them repeating their crime is reduced.

In short, the problem with giving certain sectors of society human rights (i.e. criminals) to my mind infringes the human rights of others (i.e. their victims).
Whose human rights are more deserved and important?
I think we all know the answer.

Spot on Biker1

[Bloggo]

With or without anaesthetic?

Personally I would use a couple of house bricks.

[Biker1]

Personally I would use a couple of house bricks.

Just mind your thumbs when you do it!

[Simon]

I think that if convicted of a crime and go to prison then you should lose your human rights whilst in prison.

If convicted of a serious crime then you should lose your human rights full stop!!!

Maybe that would put people off committing crime

[JeffG]

I see that Sex Offenders want their names removed from the Sex Offenders register

Maybe they do, but the right of appeal is something being imposed on this country by the European Court of Human Rights.

In the Home Secretary's statement in the House today, she said that the government would do the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the ruling. In fact, they are additionally going to close several loopholes in current legislation, so the whole thing may backfire.

There will be no right of appeal until 15 years after any sentence has been completed. There will not be an automatic appeal (as the Scots have legislated), and if an appeal is allowed, the final decision will rest with the police, not the courts.

So I don't foresee any easy ride for appellants.

[user23]

Isn't this meant for sex offenders such as a 16 year old bloke who's caught having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend?

[Andy Capp]

I suspect not because I don't think that is classed as a 'serious' sex offence. Anyway, this is concerning people who have been imprisoned for more than 30 months for a sex offence.

[Simon Kirby]

The actual argument is that it is against people's human rights to have no appeal process in law, as is the case with 'serious' sex offenders. My view is a 'serious' sex offender is unlikely to be 'cured' and the removal from the register should only be considered IF in the future, we find some way of being certain they would not re-offend. If this case is pursued, lets hope that the appeal process is sufficiently robust to maintain the public's trust, if there is any. I also think the Human Rights Act needs some redefining.

A well made point.

However, I don't see what the problem is with the HRA. The relevent Article is

Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life

1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

and that seems like a reasonable minimum standard in a civilised society.

[JeffG]

something being imposed on this country by the European Court of Human Rights.

I misheard. It seems it was our own Supreme Court.

[user23]

I suspect not because I don't think that is classed as a 'serious' sex offence. Anyway, this is concerning people who have been imprisoned for more than 30 months for a sex offence.

Radio 4 must have got it incorrect this morning then.

[Andy Capp]

The BBC news says:

Only individuals sentenced to more than 30 months for a sex-related crime are required to register with police for life. It is estimated that about 24,000 sex offenders who were required to register for life, including paedophiles and rapists, could be affected by the ruling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979

[Berkshirelad]

Maybe they do, but the right of appeal is something being imposed on this country by the European Court of Human Rights.

Much as we would no doubt like to, we can't blame the ECHR for this one. The ruling came from the Supreme Court in London

[JeffG]

Much as we would no doubt like to, we can't blame the ECHR for this one. The ruling came from the Supreme Court in London

As I subsequently corrected myself in post #15.

[Andy Capp]

Much as we would no doubt like to, we can't blame the ECHR for this one. The ruling came from the Supreme Court in London

But wasn't the ruling based on the Human Rights Act?