Human Rights

[Jubal]

Okay, I want to open a debate on Human Rights, in relation to my latest Vlogpost.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxXsMgijO48

Specifically, does anyone actually disagree with the current list? If so, why? And should anything be added or removed?

List is here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4002951

Your human rights are:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

So... what's wrong with those?

[Ladyhawk]

I cant kill my ex.

Otherwise, no, I see nothing wrong with those at all. I believe that everyone should be entitiled to such things.

[Cuddly Khan]

They give people the death penalty anyway.

[Jubal]

That's the UK/EU list, the death penalty isn't on the statute book here.

[comrade_general]

Some people deserve to die.

[Ladyhawk]

That is true. Or at least be put through the pain that they caused others.

[Cuddly Khan]

Err... interesting debate. *backs away scared*

[Ladyhawk]

Hahahaha, awwww. Dont be scared

[Jubal]

I'd argue that because some people deserve to die, that doesn't mean that you should kill them. I firmly believe that the only "good" motive for killing someone should be to prevent greater suffering and death.

If you just kill criminals, even those who have done terrible things, you lose a little of your own humanity - become a little more like the thing you're trying to stop. A society that kills is not in nearly such a good moral position to condemn killing as one that sees the inhumane treatment criminals and killers mete out and then refuses to sink to that level in response. I'd rather see murderers in prison than dead, because death is an escape from the reality of what they have done.

Secondly, I think it's dangerous to give the state a statute book with the power to execute citizens. If it's not on statute and there are bills preventing it, it then makes it vastly more difficult for any future leader to use such powers wrongly. I know we may trust our governments now, but one of the things about human rights is that you guard them against an uncertain world not a certain one.

[Ladyhawk]

I still think putting them through what they have done is the way to go.

[Jubal]

It's logical, but where does it stop? An eye for an eye, and pretty soon the whole world is blind.

A society that is forceful and vindictive in its system of justice breeds a harsh and vindictive response. As corporal and capital punishments decreased in Britain from being the main method of punishment, so too did the crime rate.

[Captain Carthage]

In Norway they have the nicest prisons in the world, and compared to the rest of the world their re-offence rate is stupid low. Rehabilitation may not play exactly to your sense of justice but it damn well works when done right.

[comrade_general]

you lose a little of your own humanity

Since when is it not part of humanity to kill?

I think it's dangerous to give the state a statute book with the power to execute citizens.

*states; it is a jury of one's peers that decide on the death penalty, at least here. Maybe not in China.

Rehabilitation may not play exactly to your sense of justice but it damn well works when done right.

Agreed, and if the case everywhere it would trump my first point by showing that humanity had moved beyond what it was.
*coughstartrekcough*

[Jubal]

Since we decided that on the grounds we wouldn't like to be killed ourselves, it is therefore morally wrong to kill other people? Our humanity is not the same as our basest instincts, it is the things that make us special as a species. And I think one of those is the ability to make moral judgements and our ability to see a future better than our past.

I said a statute book: in fact, assuming your system is the same as ours a jury only decides on guilt. A judge decides the penalty. If the death penalty is not on statute it means it can't be used for ANY crime, aka it is more difficult for our theoretical bad state than simply creating a new crime with the death penalty; they would have to re-implement the entire mechanism system into common law rather than it being ready-made for their ease and convenience.

Rehabilitative justice does work in more or less all places where it's been tried. Politicians are just scared of looking "soft on crime" so they don't bother doing things which will actually fix the problem.

[comrade_general]

I could be wrong, but it sure seems to me that in our system the jury also decides on either death or life imprisonment in those situations.