Human Rights Act Options

[Biker1]

The Human rights laws do need to be reviewed to recognise the pain, distress and rights of the victims of crime.
I personally believe that the law should be changed to recognise that when you break the law you do so knowing that you relinguish your human rights because you actively and knowingly ignore the human rights of your intended victim or the person you harm, maim or kill because you commited a criminal act.

This is a civilised and responsible position to take and I fail to understand why those that break the laws of our country are protected. It is perverse and obscene and needs to be changed quickly.

Once again Bloggo you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Andy Capp]

I say scrap it. People seem to think they have all these "rights" now, right to a family, right to freedom, right to a home etc. Rubbish you have the right to exist, everything else is a bonus. I know it sounds harsh but the onus should be on individuals to create a society, not idealistsic lawyers and pressure groups.

I think you miss the point a little. I don't think anyone is owed a living, but the HRA is a contract between the individual and the state, not between individuals as such. If people are contributing to the society (say, via tax) then they could reasonably expect something in return.

We have a HRA in the hope we don't end up with a dictatorship.

[GMR]

I agree, it needs improving.
I think you heard you the first time!

If it is worth saying then it is worth repeating

[NWNREADER]

Can you cite some references so we can see whether the HRA is actually creating perverse results, because there are several possibilities here, one being that these things dodn't happen, and another that the result wasn't that perverse.

Of course another possibility is that Britain isn't ready to be civilised, at least not to people who don't "deserve" it.

Can you cite some references for when the HRA has delivered a valuable service that was previously denied?

[Andy Capp]

Can you cite some references for when the HRA has delivered a valuable service that was previously denied?

Not including what the public probably haven't heard about? Things the police or government have abandoned that we might have felt. Remember recently Brum council were told to go back and think again before down grading services to the vulnerable.

[NWNREADER]

Not including what the public probably haven't heard about? Things the police or government have abandoned that we might have felt. Remember recently Brum council were told to go back and think again before down grading services to the vulnerable.

Councils have always bee held to account by a responsive electorate.....
Policing has been redefined by the Home Office over the past 20+ years

[Andy Capp]

Councils have always bee held to account by a responsive electorate.....

This was a HRA complaint.

Policing has been redefined by the Home Office over the past 20+ years

Quite, but that ain't really an answer to the suggestion that we might not get see some things because they might get kicked into the long grass before they go anywhere with it.

[Strafin]

So there are lot's of negative incidents relating to the HRA but nobody really coming up with anything good about it?

[Turin Machine]

Correct !

[Andy Capp]

So there are lot's of negative incidents relating to the HRA but nobody really coming up with anything good about it?

Rape victims were entitled to be cross-examined by their assailant. Due to an appeal that this violated their human right to be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, the law was changed.

[Turin Machine]

Did it really , honestly require such a massive piece of legislation to do (rightly) what a simpe change to existing law and a bit of understanding for the victim would have achieved ??

[Andy Capp]

Did it really , honestly require such a massive piece of legislation to do (rightly) what a simpe change to existing law and a bit of understanding for the victim would have achieved ??

I don't know, but the law 'forced' it to happen.

[NWNREADER]

Rape victims were entitled to be cross-examined by their assailant. Due to an appeal that this violated their human right to be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, the law was changed.

Suspects have always been entitled to challenge their accuser, whatever the offence. What happened was that indecency offenders got their rocks off by having the sordid details repeated in Court, going into every detail. Then in prison, a market developed in trial transcripts and statements used for appeals, where the victim was describing the offence.
Judges were always empowered to limit inappropriate lines of questioning, but they were more and more restricted by appealed decisions. Barristers were also under guidance not to accept outrageous briefs, but money talks.
As with so many things over time, weak direction from Government to the Judiciary, and strong policy on public conduct, leads to diluted law that eventually brings in some draconian measure to right a self-inflicted wrong.
There are many.....

[Jayjay]

I think we have to decide which HR we are talking about. The European HR are vitally important - these outlaw torture, arrest and imprisonment without trial and all the nasties. They don't really affect us in the UK, but are vital tools in some countries. The UK HR simply ensures that, for instance, judges consider human rights when sentencing. The right to a family life was brought in so a person could not, for example, be sterilized against their will. What has happened is that criminals and barristers have challenged this to mean a person cannot be imprisoned for a crime and not see his children.

[Andy Capp]

As with so many things over time, weak direction from Government to the Judiciary, and strong policy on public conduct, leads to diluted law that eventually brings in some draconian measure to right a self-inflicted wrong.There are many.....

The point is, someone brought a HRA case against doing it, and it got stopped because of it.

What we need, while the act is in place, is for people to fight for their right, and perhaps be prepared to challenge the authorities with it.

"Article 2 of the HRA imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect life. When death occurs in custody or as a result of the authorities' dereliction, it imposes obligations to hold an independent inquiry into what went wrong."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/li...uman-rights-act

In effect, the government, or authorities, often in the cases mentioned, fail in its duty to protect its citizens by its inactions. This is usually where the failure exists.

I do agree though, the HRA is positively used by some criminals, to protect themselves from what most people would regard as appropriate justice.

[Simon Kirby]

Human Rights Human Lives is a good place to start for an assessment of the impact of the HRA. It is however reasonably difficult to quantify the difference the act has made because there's not been such a great proliferation of casesas and it's not easy to say whether that's because public authorities have made something of an effort to make their procedures HRA-compliant, or because they were anyways. I think it's quite a bit of both.

[Simon Kirby]

I think we have to decide which HR we are talking about. The European HR are vitally important - these outlaw torture, arrest and imprisonment without trial and all the nasties. They don't really affect us in the UK, but are vital tools in some countries. The UK HR simply ensures that, for instance, judges consider human rights when sentencing. The right to a family life was brought in so a person could not, for example, be sterilized against their will. What has happened is that criminals and barristers have challenged this to mean a person cannot be imprisoned for a crime and not see his children.

I would suggest that what the courts have done is to implement as carefully as they can the intention behind the Convention, and sometimes this creates "perverse" decisions. The essential problem is not that the decision is wrong, but rather that fundamentally people don't believe in the Convention rights.

Take for example the Article 2 Right to Life. Not so obviously contentious, but it imposes on the state a duty to protect people from death, and it was this duty that prevented the state deporting the Iraqi man back to Iraq. So how does a civilised society resolve this issue? Not respect a right to life? Respect a right to life, but not for foreigners?

The one bit that I don't accept is the Article 8 right to a family life. All the other rights to my mind serve the interests of society as a whole, but I just don't see why having a family should be a right. I'd say it is this right that has created the majority of the objectionable results, for the very reason that the right does not sit well in UK culture.

[Andy Capp]

I think you might be misrepresenting the article Simon. I think your entitlement to family life only applies if you do-not fall under the description of Article 8:2.

"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."

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/index.html


Reading through the act, it seem reasonable, it also suggests that criminals do forfeit some rights, yet it seems the judiciary don't always give that aspect so much weight.

This is my point, and I think it is already in the articles, a criminals rights should be secondary to those of the innocent and the general public. I would stop short of saying a criminal loses all rights; there should perhaps be a Criminal Rights Act that is based on the HRA?

[Simon Kirby]

I think you might be misrepresenting the article Simon. I think your entitlement to family life only applies if you do-not fall under the description of Article 8:2.

I agree, and on the face of it the article doesn't appear objectionable, yet this is the article that would appear to have created the "perverse" results complained of, and Jayjay suggests that the courts have capriciously over-extended the article's intended protection so that criminals with families avoid jail.

What I think has happened here is that the courts have balanced the rights and in some limited circumstances found a prison sentence to be disproportinate. The problem is that I don't believe the right is one that the vengeful man-in-the-street holds particularly dear, and therein lies the "perversity".

More generally I don't think the man-in-the-street cares much for any of the Convention rights which only ever seem to be asserted by foreigners, or criminals, or troublemakers.

[Strafin]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ghts-freed.html

I know the mail likes to beef it's stories up a bit but the facts are still valid.