"Human Rights" --European Court

[gratedenini]

I`ve been mostly trying not to listen to 5Live phone in of late cos I get too ragged up at the presenters simply provoking people for "sensational" replies etc.

Anyway, I did listen this morning..and it was about this vote that MPs are going to have to take regarding giving prisoners the vote.

The discussion centred on whether a review should be had of the power The European Court has to implement such rulings onto us.

Now, whilst I suppose there are lots of issues where theres some very good things come out of it... 5 Live obviously trawled out a long list of atrotious examples of blatant examples including the bloke who knocked a lass over,left her for dead..long string of offences behind him,claimed asylum falsely..but the court still said he could stay here.

Now, I know this will get the likes of Tonto erecting a soap box par exellence.. but sorry like--it just seems wrong to me.

The father hasn`t seen any justice there.

About 6 other examples were given , which I dont think anybody could argue with.

Personally, I think prisoners shouldn`t be allowed to vote. If you commit a crime and in soceities eyes its deemed that you should go to prison--then I think you forfeit certain rights --and voting is one of em.

If they cant do the lottery... then they shouldn`t be allowed to vote either!

den

[eFestivals]

The father hasn`t seen any justice there.

Hasn't he? Wasn't the offender caught and punished?

You've got sucked into the false idea that "justice" is about revenge, or about some sort of restoration of what there was before the offence. Yet it's not possible for any justice system to restore a lost life.

Justice is about catching the offender and subjecting them to the punishment &/or restraint that the law deems correct, and nothing else.

Just because someone commits an offence it doesn't mean they lose all rights to their existence as a human. They have a right to be humanely restrained (in prison), and not tied to stocks and abused and degraded as the fancy takes people. Along with all that is their right to help influence the law and govt, no different to (say) the CBI demanding that taxes are cut for the rich.

[gratedenini]

Hasn't he? Wasn't the offender caught and punished?

You've got sucked into the false idea that "justice" is about revenge, or about some sort of restoration of what there was before the offence. Yet it's not possible for any justice system to restore a lost life.

Justice is about catching the offender and subjecting them to the punishment &/or restraint that the law deems correct, and nothing else.

Just because someone commits an offence it doesn't mean they lose all rights to their existence as a human. They have a right to be humanely restrained (in prison), and not tied to stocks and abused and degraded as the fancy takes people. Along with all that is their right to help influence the law and govt, no different to (say) the CBI demanding that taxes are cut for the rich.

[jump]

I was hoping this would mean GB would be thrown out of the European Court but it looks like we're caving in and gonna let a few short sentence prisoners vote as apparently this will make the Government liable for compensation to prisoners otherwise.

[eFestivals]

...he "got away with it" --full stop.

I've no idea which particular case you're talking about, but everything you've said says in that he didn't "get away with it", as he got caught.

He was in this country illegally, he committed a terrible terrible deed which left a family utterly devastated,

it's unfortunate, but shit happens. And it happens far more from those born and bred here than it does from 'outsiders' legal or illegal.

he has a string of offences to his name,

there's probably not a single adult in this country who doesn't. The only difference is that most don't get caught.

he really doesn`t sound like the type of person which would benefit our soceity in any way or form..

I could say the same about you. I certainly don't think your "string him up" attitude benefits this country.

nothing is going to bring that blokes daughter back

exactly. So it's rather dumb to base any idea of justice on the impossible.

and any justice is a form of revenge really

only for those who can't see anything except revenge as acceptable.

What about the blokes who hi-jacked a plane and made em fly here. Threatened to kill people on board--and they end up being allowed to stay here?

The narrow minded look only at the actions. The broader minded look at the why behind those actions.

This country likes to think of itself as better than others. Sending them back knowing they'd be killed as a result puts you squarely in the same place as you place those hi-jackers - in fact in a worse place, cos you'd be ensuring death rather than merely threatening it. .

Now--- I might be openeing mesell up here for The Moral Police to be loading up with double barrels..but it just doesn`t seem right to me.

and stupidity doesn't seem right to me.

I`m a comapssionate sort.

PMSL - you've just demanded that people die to satisfy your lust for revenge.

my initial post was regarding if The European Court have too much power in making decisions.

Do they? How? By having the power to make this country act decently you mean, rather than driven by the blood lust and blood feuds you've said very clearly above that you'd prefer?

All power to the sense of The European Court, and thank f**k that the small-minded morons aren't fully in control.

[worm]

Justice is about catching the offender and subjecting them to the punishment &/or restraint that the law deems correct, and nothing else.

Edited February 8, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, that's the justice system.

Justice is the value upon which social systems (such as the justice system) work and should be judged. For example, you could ask whether the above system of justice was just. You couldn't ask that if your assertion was true.

You're talking about the difference between a personal opinion of what is justice and the wider opinion of society as a whole considers to be justice.

I was referring to what society as a whole has concluded, and caused to be law. There's no other correct way to view justice within a democracy.

[worm]

This country likes to think of itself as better than others. Sending them back knowing they'd be killed as a result puts you squarely in the same place as you place those hi-jackers - in fact in a worse place, cos you'd be ensuring death rather than merely threatening it. .

Edited February 8, 2011 by worm

[worm]

I was referring to what society as a whole has concluded, and caused to be law.

[eFestivals]

Meaning that the nation takes on moral responsibility in judging another nation's laws less moral than their own.

Can't have it both ways Neil, you either become indifferent and abstain from any consequential action or you exert your own moral superiority by acting to negate the judicial process of another nation that you deem wrong (in this case, barbaric).

You often state that Britain is not morally superior to another nation. In that case, it has to remain indifferent to the consequences of sending someone to be punished according to a different judicial system. It cannot be held responsible, lest it be an act of moral superiority.

I'm not trying to have it both ways in any way.

We are entitled to decide how we deliver what we believe to be justice no less than any other nation. If our own sense of justice is different to elsewhere and we don't wish to subject someone to what happens elsewhere, we're able to. Similarly, they are able to do the same.

Your idea only holds true if each country has a global jurisdiction, which none does (tho the USA likes to believe that it does ).

[eFestivals]

I'm talking about the idea of justice upon which the justice system is founded and must accord to.-

yet no justice system can.

The "idea of justice" is different for every individual, and no system is able to accord to an infinite number of different ideas.

From those individual ideas of justice, any democratic society forms an overall view of what is justice and what isn't.

Rubbish. A justice system is not above justice, it is bound to it. The notion of justice is constantly changing.

Once you've defined which idea of justice any justice system is bound to, you might have said something sensible - but you might have said something moronic.

So please do tell me what definition of justice you're working to.

[diddly-dee]

To return to Den's original point, it's clear that some good and wise decisions come from the European Court (and, yes, I know that 'good and wise' is a subjective concept - but, given the word 'democracy' is oft bandied about as being some sort of ideal in the decision making process, i'll define 'good and wise' decisions as being ones that fall comfortably within the acceptable moral compass of the majority of UK inhabitants) and, it would seem, using the same criteria, that some fairly offensive rulings come from the European Court too. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), we can't pick and choose which decisions we run with as a country and which we dispense of. All I will say is if it had been the child of a celebrity or member of parliament or royalty that was done for under the wheels of the car driven by Aso Mohammed Ibrahim (this was the hit and run driver who killed the 12 year old Den was talking about) rather than the child of an ordinary family from East Lancashire do you think the 'justice' meted out to Ibrahim would be the same as that which he received?

[worm]

We are entitled to decide how we deliver what we believe to be justice no less than any other nation. If our own sense of justice is different to elsewhere and we don't wish to subject someone to what happens elsewhere, we're able to. Similarly, they are able to do the same.

[eFestivals]

To return to Den's original point, it's clear that some good and wise decisions come from the European Court (and, yes, I know that 'good and wise' is a subjective concept - but, given the word 'democracy' is oft bandied about as being some sort of ideal in the decision making process, i'll define 'good and wise' decisions as being ones that fall comfortably within the acceptable moral compass of the majority of UK inhabitants) and, it would seem, using the same criteria, that some fairly offensive rulings come from the European Court too. Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), we can't pick and choose which decisions we run with as a country and which we dispense of. All I will say is if it had been the child of a celebrity or member of parliament or royalty that was done for under the wheels of the car driven by Aso Mohammed Ibrahim (this was the hit and run driver who killed the 12 year old Den was talking about) rather than the child of an ordinary family from East Lancashire do you think the 'justice' meted out to Ibrahim would be the same as that which he received?

But similarly, would the sentence he did get be any different if he'd been born in this country? No it wouldn't. There's plenty of hit and run drivers who don't get imprisoned. A decision is made on what happened, and not on where the person has come from.

I don't know the details of the case you're on about, but it might be the case that the 12 year old ran out in front of the driver - in which case is it the drivers fault that he hit and killed someone? Of course it's not, and so it would not be right to treat the driver the same as someone who had caused a death by their own negligent driving.

It's the details of any case which leads to the decision that's made about any case.

I strongly suspect that the sort of anger that den is expressing is a result of him not knowing the details of the case or of having read a warped version of what actually happened. People don't give a verdict and sentence on the basis of "we're going to let him off cos he's from overseas", which is basically what den has suggested is the case.

Edited February 8, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

That's fine. However, it's not the same as this:

''Sending them back knowing they'd be killed as a result puts you squarely in the same place as you place those hi-jackers''

As you say, we can decide not to send them back if we wish. But we are not responsible for their judgement elsewhere. Therefore, the issue of sending them back has nothing to do with them being killed, unless we deem their judicial system wrong.

"wrong" is not the correct word to use in that last sentence. "Different" would be more appropriate.

Any society forms their view of what is justice as a result of their own culture. Because each society has a different culture, it follows that they'll have a different idea of what is justice.

If you work from the idea of 'wrong', then you have to - if consistent in your analysis - end up concluding that our own system of justice is no less wrong than any other.

[worm]

yet no justice system can.

Edited February 8, 2011 by worm

[diddly-dee]

But similarly, would the sentence he did get be any different if he'd been born in this country? No it wouldn't. There's plenty of hit and run drivers who don't get imprisoned. A decision is made on what happened, and not on where the person has come from.

I don't know the details of the case you're on about, but it might be the case that the 12 year old ran out in front of the driver - in which case is it the drivers fault that he hit and killed someone? Of course it's not, and so it would not be right to treat the driver the same as someone who had caused a death by their own negligent driving.

It's the details of any case which leads to the decision that's made about any case.

I strongly suspect that the sort of anger that den is expressing is a result of him not knowing the details of the case or of having read a warped version of what actually happened. People don't give a verdict and sentence on the basis of "we're going to let him off cos he's from overseas", which is basically what den has suggested is the case.

[worm]

"wrong" is not the correct word to use in that last sentence. "Different" would be more appropriate.

Any society forms their view of what is justice as a result of their own culture. Because each society has a different culture, it follows that they'll have a different idea of what is justice.

If you work from the idea of 'wrong', then you have to - if consistent in your analysis - end up concluding that our own system of justice is no less wrong than any other.

[eFestivals]

Exactly. That's why you shouldn't confuse justice with a justice system, as you did.

care to show me how justice can happen outside of a justice system?

You're babbling now.

A justice system is based upon a notion of righteouness (such as being physically branded to heal the soul) and constantly changes (such as the move to humanitarian rights).

What remains is the notion of justice, which is the idea that human wrong should be righted.

The one who is babbling is you - you're talking worthless bollocks, as shown by your refusal to define what you've said.

That avoidal gets to show that you know you're talking worthless bollocks.

[worm]

care to show me how justice can happen outside of a justice system?

[worm]

try harder....

[eFestivals]

In the case itself, Ibrahim was banned from driving and on bail at the time he killed the girl in a 'hit and run' so the issue of whether she ran out or not is a bit spurious as he shouldn't have been driving anyway.

It's definitely not spurious.

If the driver had been fully legal and the accident was unavoidable because the kid was the one who caused the accident, then it would be unfair to punish the driver as tho the death was solely the result of their own negligent driving. Hopefully you agree with that.

If the driver was illegal but everything else was the same then the driver is no more the cause of the accident than if the driver were legal. Yes, the driver is guilty of other things - driving when banned, etc - but not of causing the death itself. As such, they should only be punished for the things they have done wrong and not the things they have not done wrong.

I don't know whether she ran out or not - although if she did and to somehow believe that diminshes the blame of the driver who shouldn't have been driving is like blaming someone who walks into, say, a shoot-out if they get shot rather than the person firing an illegal firearm.

Going by the sentence, I'd say it's very likely that the accident itself was as a result of what the kid did.

But anyway, your analogy is hugely mis-placed. A gun is something designed to cause death, but a car isn't, it's merely a form of transport that unfortunately causes around 10 deaths a day, most of which aren't the result of deliberate decisions to be negligent.

(I realise that just about all 'accidents' are avoidable, but that's a different and very complex subject in its own right. For simplicity I'll stick with the idea that such things are 'accidents' because that's how they're considered in law unless outright negligence can be proven).

To view what happened in its proper perspective, it needs to be looked at in the same way as it would be if the driver was legal (unless the illegality caused the accident by itself - which doesn't appear to be the case here, going by the sentence that was given out).

If the driver had been legal, and if it was a 70mph limit, then would the accident had a different outcome if the driver had been illegal by driving at 71mph? Nope, it wouldn't - yet that's no less illegal than driving when banned.

If you were that illegal 71mph driver I guarantee that you'd feel hard-done-by if you were treated differently - despite no different outcome from the accident - than a 70mph legal driver. The 'illegality' wasn't any part of what happened, the kid's actions in running into the road was.

[eFestivals]

What the hell are you talking about?

I asked you to define what exactly you were meaning by 'justice' within a particular sentence, so that what you'd said could have meaning rather than no meaning.

You've declined to define what you were meaning by 'justice' in that sentence, thus leaving what you'd said as completely meaningless.

You're making as much sense as this: blurbdedoby lovlikea fish, numptyarsewipefool.

But it's the same as ever, so I'm not surprised.

[worm]

I asked you to define what exactly you were meaning by 'justice' within a particular sentence, so that what you'd said could have meaning rather than no meaning.

[eFestivals]

Justice is the notion of righting wrong, as used in every sentence that contains the word justice.

A justice system is based upon this notion, though has to qualify in relation to society.

They are two different things Neil, the latter being subject to the former. You were wrong to say that justice is what a justice system decides.

You said "A justice system is not above justice, it is bound to it."

Now, let's put your 'definition' in there, shall we? It comes out saying:-

"A notion of righting wrong is not above a notion of righting wrong, it is bound to a notion of righting wrong."

It's meaningless garbage.

Edited February 8, 2011 by eFestivals