Human Rights

[wisewomen]

Does anyone agree that when a person kills another human being theat that person gives up all human rights they had.

[tigerlelly]

Absolutely! I find it incredible that people who have been found guilty of breaking the law (not just murder) then start bleating on about 'protection under the law' and banging on about their 'Human Rights'.

[Hugh Spencer]

Yes, and I think that consideration should be given to depriving human rights to those who maim and kill while under the influence of drink and drugs.

[jno]

No. If anyone can take them away from you, they're not rights. If you don't believe in human rights, of course, that won't be a problem - but it means you'll never be able to claim any for yourself.

[WaldoMcFroog]

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is one of mankind's greatest achievements, and to remove them would be a tragedy.

Don't judge human rights legislation on the basis on the occasional scumbag. Millions benefit, but they're not newsworthy.

[chazza]

It depends on the circumstances

[heathfield]

Quite so, Chazza. Let's not forget that it may happen through an act of self defence. Perhaps, after a little thought, the question could have been better put by asking about the deliberate and intentional killing of another?

[jake-the-peg]

Ah the purveyors of simple answers to complex questions are out in force again today aren't they.

People who kill come in all flavours from the sadistic Fred Wests of this world through people who beat others up and accidently kill them, through the company chairman - Daily Mail reader who comes home early and kills the plumber in bed with his wife, all the way down to someone ( could be you ) not paying enough attention driving home that kills a pensioner in dark clothes crossing on a Zebera crossing.

Now let's conseider what these human rights are - you do know what they are don't you?

Things like the right not to be tortured, raped or murdered in custody.

Are you suggesting that prison wardens should be allowed to torture inmates for "kicks"?

[tigerlelly]

I certainly wasn't suggesting that decent human behaviour should be abandoned, just that criminals should take responsibility for their actions and not hide under the Human Rights umbrella.
Of course the Act is, in theory, a good thing but it is being abused by lawyers to get their clients off the hook.
Surely something is wrong with the system when victims feel that they are the ones let down by it?

[ruby27]

No

[mibn2cweus]

Anyone who initiates force against another thereby sets a precedence that the use of such force is acceptable and can therefore be used likewise against them. Self defense is an essential human right that justifies the use of deadly force if such is first initiated by another human being against them and is necessary to protect ones own life.

Civilisations thrive or crumble based on how well they recognise, define and defend rights essential to the mutually beneficial coexistence of individuals. Laws define these essential human rights, police uphold them and courts arbitrate violations, grievances and disputes. Such systems have evolved over the centuries of human existence, along with the civilisations they make possible, and must keep in step with the advances made by virtue of those systems.

Justice is not met in haste and wisdom can only be gained at the price of experience. The full context of available knowledge must come to bear and be applied when determining if, when and how the taking of another human life is justified.

Until a person is proven to be less than a human being they should retain the rights required by a human being to remain a human being or we all are in grave jeopardy of losing our status as rational beings.

[cheries]

I'm confused, mib, does that mean you're saying you believe that "an eye for an eye" is justifiable? Or that justice should be metered out rationally, allowing the killer to retain their human rights?

[mibn2cweus]

Cheries, If you pluck out your own eye and cast it at me I am not morally (or otherwise) compelled to do likewise. I don�t have a simple answer to the complex circumstances surrounding a particular instance of wrong-doing. Until all the facts are in I am satisfied with having a potentially dangerous criminal remanded to the custody of those whose function is to protect society from harm.

I define a human being in the most basic terms by the characteristic that best describes us in terms of our relationship to the rest of reality which is that we are animals and by what distinguished us from all other creatures in that group which is our rationality.

When you consider all things in reality of which we have knowledge, the smallest group of things for which we as humans share a relationship is animals. The broadest characteristic that distinguishes us from this group is our rationality. Based on these criteria, in the most basic terms we are by definition rational animals and therefore, when we cease to be rational we no longer comply with this definition of what it is to be human.

Rationality is not only our means of survival but, in as far as we are aware, is the crowning achievement of the process of evolution. The ability we as humans share, to conceptualize and reason offers us the potential to grasp the nature of the universe, our place within it and our relationship to it and each other. The use of this ability presents us with a wide range of alternatives to choose from and therefore demands the creation of a moral code to guide our choices and determine our actions. The basis on which this moral code should rest should be the promotion of the survival and well-being of this unique and most exquisite creature which is the human being. We give the universe meaning not only by defining and appreciating what it is but by virtue of this ability, being in it.

continued . . .

[mibn2cweus]

The point of all of this is that self-respect is the well-spring from which the desire to understand and practice moral behavior flows. Self-respect is the recognition of the potential of our value as individuals and grows as we acknowledge and assume responsibility for our own lives and the consequences of our actions.

The taking of another persons life must take the preceding into consideration and is only justified when the life of one who respects the value of human life and all that that entails is gravely threatened by one who refuses to respect that value and has failed to appreciate their own value to the extent necessary to be responsible for their own well-being. One who refuses to don the cloak of humanity and has contempt for it has willfully ejected themselves from the realm of what it is to be human and justice is served by complying with their wishes and treating them accordingly.
It is within the court system when a given case is considered by ones peers that such a determination must be made and appropriate justice dispensed. Permanent eviction from the human race is tantamount to murder and should not be done in haste nor before all the facts have been considered and it is determined that the individual in question has in essence committed moral suicide.

[Quentin]

Lets get all philosphical!!!! I Think that when a person takes another life they deserve nothing less than an ultimate wedgee!!!!!