The argument over human rights seems to come down to whether or not, by committing crimes, one becomes no longer a human being.
My personal opinion is that one stops being human only when one dies so human rights should apply to any living human being.

I agree entirely.

JK2006 wrote:
The argument over human rights seems to come down to whether or not, by committing crimes, one becomes no longer a human being.
My personal opinion is that one stops being human only when one dies so human rights should apply to any living human being.


Are we not denying someone a human right to freedom ? Even if they have committed crimes such as Ian Brady did ? Where are his human rights ?

Like everything else, you create a situation and people abuse it so they draw lines, usually with disastrous results.

What are the rights at the end of the day ?

Basic human rights to food, water and shelter are not being denied to the likes of Ian Brady. Freedom is a conditional right. We are all denied freedom to some extent.

mikemacca wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
The argument over human rights seems to come down to whether or not, by committing crimes, one becomes no longer a human being.
My personal opinion is that one stops being human only when one dies so human rights should apply to any living human being.


Are we not denying someone a human right to freedom ? Even if they have committed crimes such as Ian Brady did ? Where are his human rights ?

Like everything else, you create a situation and people abuse it so they draw lines, usually with disastrous results.

What are the rights at the end of the day ?

the only true rights is for there to be anarchy. Laws are for control. But it wouldn't be much fun that way. Getting the balance right is always the battle.

The South Australian premier is promising that if re-elected he will allow juries to see a person's previous convictions in a trial. Politicans on the make really are dreadful.

What puzzles me about the Venables case is : Most people seem to want to believe that he is intrinsically evil. He was evil when he was born, he was evil at 10, and he must be still evil now - and only liberal dogooders would think otherwise.

If that's the case, free will doesn't exist and bad people shouldn't be 'punished' for 'choices' that they obviously can't help making.

We've swallowed this childish American habit of seeing the world in clear cut terms of good and evil. Of course the indignant herd always assume that they are forever on the good side that needs to be protected, and to hell with the outcasts, of whom they'll never be one.

Who knows, maybe we will yet grow up? Perhaps they'll finally invent a drug to make us all smater in the next few years, even Sun readers?

Denise wrote:
We are all denied freedom to some extent.

There are some people queueing up to give their rights away !

Incidentally, in both Finland and Estonia, internet access has just become a basic "right".

Yes some people claim that Venables and Thompson are naturally evil and beyond redemption, as per Hannibal Lecter. I can believe that there are occasionally people born like that, but the odds of two being born in the same city and attending the same class in the same school at the same time do seem rather remote.