Victims have human rights too.
The advocates of our existing human rights legislation promised us that these laws would ensure that the rights of everyone would be taken into consideration, including the right of law-abiding citizens to be protected from crime.
The decision of the Asylum and Immigration tribunal that the killer convicted of the murder of head teacher Phillip Lawrence should not be deported to the country of which he is a citizen, Italy, at the conclusion of his sentence is depressing evidence that this law does not always work as it was intended.
Because the murderer came to Britain at the age of 5 and speaks only English, the court found that his human rights would be infringed by returning him to the country of his birth. I would have considered that the argument used by the tribunal would be reasonable in the case of someone convicted of a less serious crime, one which did not clearly identify him as a danger to the public. But in the case of killers, rapists, and other highly dangerous individuals, the human right to safety for the victims and potential future victims should take priority over those of the criminal.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Human rights are important, as is the rule of law. That includes the human rights of the accused - because sometimes people charged with the most horrible crimes are actually innocent. And even those convicted of serious offences should not be treated worse than is necessary to protect the public from them. If we forget that any prisoners, no matter how vile the crimes they have committed, or how justified our anger with them, are still human beings, we damage and demean our own humanity as well as theirs.
What someone who commits a horrible crime should forfeit is not any human rights at all, but the expectation that his or her rights will be given the same priority as those of the actual and potential victim. Our elected parliament should have the right to pass rules which provide, by due process, for the deportation of foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious crimes.
If the existing Human Rights Act is in conflict with this, it should be repealed and replaced with a British Bill of Rights which provides for a more balanced and reasonable consideration of the rights of all parties.
I am in favour of Human rights. I want them to be implemented in a way which is consistent with fairness and justice.
The decision of the Asylum and Immigration tribunal that the killer convicted of the murder of head teacher Phillip Lawrence should not be deported to the country of which he is a citizen, Italy, at the conclusion of his sentence is depressing evidence that this law does not always work as it was intended.
Because the murderer came to Britain at the age of 5 and speaks only English, the court found that his human rights would be infringed by returning him to the country of his birth. I would have considered that the argument used by the tribunal would be reasonable in the case of someone convicted of a less serious crime, one which did not clearly identify him as a danger to the public. But in the case of killers, rapists, and other highly dangerous individuals, the human right to safety for the victims and potential future victims should take priority over those of the criminal.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Human rights are important, as is the rule of law. That includes the human rights of the accused - because sometimes people charged with the most horrible crimes are actually innocent. And even those convicted of serious offences should not be treated worse than is necessary to protect the public from them. If we forget that any prisoners, no matter how vile the crimes they have committed, or how justified our anger with them, are still human beings, we damage and demean our own humanity as well as theirs.
What someone who commits a horrible crime should forfeit is not any human rights at all, but the expectation that his or her rights will be given the same priority as those of the actual and potential victim. Our elected parliament should have the right to pass rules which provide, by due process, for the deportation of foreign nationals who have been convicted of serious crimes.
If the existing Human Rights Act is in conflict with this, it should be repealed and replaced with a British Bill of Rights which provides for a more balanced and reasonable consideration of the rights of all parties.
I am in favour of Human rights. I want them to be implemented in a way which is consistent with fairness and justice.
Comments