Human Rights?

[Pigpen]

I find it incredible that a person who has murdered an innocent man, is deemed to have greater rights than the widow and family of the man murdered!

I am of course referring to the murderer of Philip Lawrence who has won his case to stay in the UK as and when he is released from prison. This potentially could be next year.

Unreal!

[Adrian Kelland]

He is not being assigned greater rights, just equal. As an EU citizen, he can return anyway. Why waste taxpayers money flying him to a country he does not know?

I am more concerned as to whether he is a danger to the public. THAT is what should matter.

Adrian

[Pigpen]

Gonna disagree there, Adrain. He is being given greater rights. The murdered man obviously has no rights now, and his family have less rights as they will have to live in the knowledge that the murderer is free. Hardly equality.

With regard to his EU status, I believe we can issue a banning order, so he couldn't return.

I'm sure the taxpayer wouldn't mind the few hundred quid to get rid of a murderer.

Whether he is safe or not is up to the parole people, but that would be less of an issue if he were out of the UK.

[liamm]

I think a big issue here is that we dont lock people up for long enough. I dont think there should be the option of 50% remission or an early release if you behave yourself. The initial sentance should always stand, eg 30yrs should mean 30yrs, if you behave yourself you get out after 30years. If you dont you stay in longer.

I never thought i'd be the type of person to say it, but more Police and more prisions.

[Daniel Taylor]

It has always seemed to me society is generally becoming more self centred and egocentric. The difficulty that I have with the Human Rights legislation is that it gives all rights to individuals and seems to hold them above the rights of people as a society.

[MarkP]

Originally Posted by Geoff Milne

Gonna disagree there, Adrain. He is being given greater rights. The murdered man obviously has no rights now, and his family have less rights as they will have to live in the knowledge that the murderer is free. Hardly equality.

With regard to his EU status, I believe we can issue a banning order, so he couldn't return.

I'm sure the taxpayer wouldn't mind the few hundred quid to get rid of a murderer.

Whether he is safe or not is up to the parole people, but that would be less of an issue if he were out of the UK.

Do you know, I was just waiting for this to crop up.

As odious as the murderer is, he committed the crime when he was a child. He speaks English, not Italian. His family is here, not there.

I just don't see what the justification was for the deportation attempt. It could never have worked under British law.

IMO, one of the things that marks out a civilised society is how it treats its transgressors. Here we don't stone people for adultery or cut people's hands off for shoplifting. Similarly, as much as it would be nice to wash our hands of a murderer, to send a man to an unknown (to him) country because of something he did when he was a child is a bizarre concept.

Why not find a large island on the other side of the world, peopled by those who don't have firearms? We could subjugate the indigenous population and send all our rejects there. Sounds like a plan to me.

[Pigpen]

Originally Posted by MarkP

Do you know, I was just waiting for this to crop up.

As odious as the murderer is, he committed the crime when he was a child. He speaks English, not Italian. His family is here, not there.

I don't see the point?

Originally Posted by MarkP

I just don't see what the justification was for the deportation attempt. It could never have worked under British law.

The justification would be that a foreign national has commited a murder, and as a nation we should have the right to determine whether they say in this country or not. This case is based on the HRA which is patently flawed. "If someone is resident (legally) for 10 yrs, they cannot be deported unless a risk to National Security". Crap legislation.

Originally Posted by MarkP

IMO, one of the things that marks out a civilised society is how it treats its transgressors. Here we don't stone people for adultery or cut people's hands off for shoplifting. Similarly, as much as it would be nice to wash our hands of a murderer, to send a man to an unknown (to him) country because of something he did when he was a child is a bizarre concept.

Why not find a large island on the other side of the world, peopled by those who don't have firearms? We could subjugate the indigenous population and send all our rejects there. Sounds like a plan to me.

As opposed to the rights of the victims and their families? I think they should always get precedence.

[JasonP]

Originally Posted by Adrian Kelland

He is not being assigned greater rights, just equal. As an EU citizen, he can return anyway.

That's not actually true. Member countries can exclude EU citizens on grounds of public health, public security or public policy. He'd have to argue in court whether being a convicted murderer was sufficient grounds.

Jason

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Geoff Milne

....The justification would be that a foreign national has commited a murder, and as a nation we should have the right to determine whether they say in this country or not. .....

He like you is European, an EU citizen, not foreign at all. If he was American or Swiss then yes send him home, they are keen enough to do it to us.

Chris

[hogen-deifar]

Originally Posted by Geoff Milne

As opposed to the rights of the victims and their families? I think they should always get precedence.

I agree with Geoff here. A close member of my family was the victim in a horrible situation and the offender was protected by the state, by social services, because he was only 15. He changed our lives forever, and he was the one they looked after. I normally switch off on discussions like this because it's still raw, even after 13 years, because we still suffer the consequences of his actions. But Geoff is right.

In my humble opinion the murderer should lose ALL rights to anything, even after doing his time. He took a life. And he's going to be walking around eventually a free man. The guy he murdered isn't.

Before it happened to "us" I was of the opinion they do their time in prison, they have the right to a free life. But now I'm not so sure. The family and survivors have to live with the situation forever. They have a life sentence. Where's the justice in that?