h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I do wish you could grasp the point that I do not want to abolish it.

I want it to work as intended, and not be used (to quote the judge from post 1 )to put many of us in danger because we cannot infringe prisoners 'rights'

That is , I thought, precisely what Mrs Lawrence wants also.

Novo

"As SoRB eloquently expresses it, if you break the law you get punished, but there is no reason why the country of which you are a guest, should pay for you to be imprisoned."

Erm - I'd suspect that wouldn't work very well the other way round...

I live in France, I've lived out here for over 11 years now, I pay my taxes out here and I have no financial commitments within the UK... (I am, however, still a UK Citizen carrying a UK passport

If I commit a crime within France, should the British tax payer be liable for the costs of my incarceration? I can just see the Daily Mail et al. jumping up and down in glee at that story!

Bon apres midi Whisky,

Ever thought of becoming a French citizen?

Facetious remark.........but I do take your point actually, and I think it was put directly to SoRB earlier.

His answer was ( if I recall )to the effect that you should be sent home to take the appropriate UK sentence, which may or not be incarceration, whilst we returned all foreign prisoners to their country of origin. Presumably we could exchange you for any Frenchman currently languishing at Her Majesty's Pleasure!.

But to be serious about it, I was sharing SoRB's sentiment rather than advocating his view! Clearly the idea as put is impractical, as per your example, but there is some merit in ejecting a foreign national found guilty of a crime. To be honest I don't care whether he/she is let free on arrival home. The deportation of the guilty could be seen as a 'sentence' in itself, and satisfactory to us since we don't have to support him/her, only to find that the incarceration counts towards the residence target.

Novo

Just to give people an idea of the numbers we are talking about -

"As of the end of February 2006, some 10,265 foreign nationals were in British jails, representing about 13% of the prison population."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4946988.stm

I wonder if figures exist for the number of British nationals imprisoned abroad?

Imagine if we could simply get rid of over one in eight of the prison population, practically overnight, simply by sending them home, at no risk to our society.

We can.

SoRB

<>

To be fair, Reliance do their best in this regard.

Might have been better if a lot of them had not been allowed in at all.....

Novo

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_3#sch1

As I often post on these sort of discussions what exactly is wrong with the HRA? Specifically which of the articles (as they actually are rather than as the Daily Hate reports them) do people actually object to in principle?

Because for me it seems pretty right on stuff.

So Novo which specifics to you object to?

Is it The "Prohibition of Torture"? the "Prohibition of Slavery"? the "Right to a fair trial"? the "Right to respect for private and family life" the "Freedom of Assembley and association" the "Right to marry"?

I have got to say I have gone through the HRA time and time again and I cannot find a provision that seems to me to be particularly out there.

I don't think it's the HRA per se that people object to, it's when it's applied to people who manifestly disdain the ethos behind it.

Basically, once you are a criminal (which is mainly a free choice), should you be treated as an equal citizen?

For instance, would you apply "Freedom of Assembley and association" to prisoners?

Hi FB

I don't seem able to get across that I do not object to the HRA.

If I could get that into 22 point type I would do so.

All the aims and intentions of the HRA are exemplary, and should be adhered to. That is what I want. I want an Act of Parliament that protects me, my family, and every other law abiding citizen, and which does not confer undeserved 'rights' on criminals who by their actions have ( or perhaps should have ) forfeited those rights.

If you , or any other poster can show me that the HRA has never been used to the detriment of the general population, or to their disadvantage, or in circumstances where the intent and purpose has not been abused, I'll shut up

Novo

I'm a lurker more than a poster but it's a nice thought - solve our prison overcrowding overnight, not that it would have helped in this case but I concur with Novo, how many shouldn't necessarily have been here in the first place!

On the HRA I agree with its principles but not it's intepretation currently in our legal system - which if I understand it correctly is Novo's and Mrs Lawrence's point. Anyone who is convicted of a crime by a uk jury in my opinion forfeits all but the most basic rights (food, shelter, warmth without the threat of torture) as echoed by Zagreb. After that any consideration of their human rights (yes they may still have some) must be secondary to those of the victim/victim's family and those of the generally law abiding population.

Where that may leave this particular individual I'm not sure but at least the nation would feel that the HRA was being interpreted and applied 'sensibly' and as I'm sure it was intended. And not in this perverse twist where the victim's family come second to a convicted murderer....

Another thought departing a little from the thread, is that he and all convicted criminals should serve their full sentence, I for one am sick of hearing that X has been sentenced to 25years but for good behaviour would be considered for parole in 12. It should be 25 years with more added for bad behaviour.

But most of all my utmost sympathy for the very wretched position the Lawrence family have found themselves in, I can understand exactly the sentiments of Mrs Lawrence. And it's perhaps not surprising that we've got record numbers leaving the uk for other places to live....

<< I for one am sick of hearing that X has been sentenced to 25years but for good behaviour would be considered for parole in 12. It should be 25 years with more added for bad behaviour.>>

SWL:

Of course not, and the act says quite specifically that is not the case see section two of article 11. Helpfully re-produced here:-

"2 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, 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. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State."

FB - what part of that excerpt says prisoners cannot have the right of assembly?

The only bit I could see applying is regarding disorder. Does every assembly lead to disorder?

Novo

Hmmmm....

Well perhaps you and I differ on this one. I am quite wedded to the idea that there should be some rights that are inviolate and you have simply by definition of being a human.

There are circumstances where some of this changes (such as when you commit a crime) and the HRA takes account of this. It is quite legal for the state to incarcerate and punish a ocnvicted criminal under the HRA.

However once anyone has seved their time they should surely no longer be punished for it (insofar as they no longer represent a risk to the community) this is the principle that underpins our criminal justice system irrespective of the HRA.

If people have problems with sentancing policy fine, but that is surely a different debate and IMHO sod all to do with the HRA.

SWL,

Sorry about that if you didnt understand. Click the link and read the whole of article 11 and it makes sense in context. Basically it says you have freedom of assembley unless you are being lawfully punished for a crime etc...

Should there be a delineation between the HRA and citizen's rights then?

Perhaps the HRA could cover the very basic minimum that everyone is entitled to - no torture etc, then it's up to each country to define what constitutes citizen's rights according to local custom & culture?

In short, is the HRA too encompassing in a laudable attempt to cover all the bases?

FB

uhm, what link?

post 48.

Sorry FB

Ferretbadger,

Agreed it has sod all to do with the HRA hence my preliminary statement about departing from the thread..... I was merely sounding off about my opinion of the sentencing policy of the UK legal system.

It was and is not my intention to imply a link to the HRA, posters I hope can ignore that aspect of my post and return to the main crux of the discussion.