Should a killer have human rights ?

Question

using a recent example, a killer has been released from prison after 12 years after stabbing a school headmaster to death, he is going to be given a new identity, a home, a car, an allowance and 24 hour police protection by the means of a panic button, is this right that a person that has killed another person and destroyed a whole familes lives should be treat with kid gloves ?

Answer 1

Everyone has human rights; no matter what they do. We need to all remember; -SOME- killers think differently to us 'normal' people. So; yes he is entitled to that.

Answer 2

criminals seem to get more human rights than a victim or their family and this is not fair at all. Law abiding citizens pay their taxes and want to be protected. Not to fund some homoscidal maniac so he can have a HD-TV gym and latest gadgets. The poorest families in Britain do not have these why should they have more rights than them.

All they deserve is the basic human rights, food, water, shelter and the right to exercise that is it. Criminals in america after a spell in prison want to avoid it for the rest of their lives. In the UK people use prisions as a hotel. Why? Because they get everything paid for by us, and they can use it as a hostel.

What was that statistic I saw last year that it costs less per night at the Ritz in London than it does to keep one prisoner in a cell for a night. A joke and a travisty to this country and should be sorted before more people use it as a B&B!

Answer 3

I think he was only about 14 when he killed ( not saying that makes it ok), but he may have had a chance to reform/feel a great deal of remorse etc.  I don't think he got such a cushy deal as the papers make out.  I really don't think he was given a car?

Answer 4

Alll human beings have human rights, by definition.

It is BECAUSE he is human that he was jailed for the killing. Animals that kill people don't get jailed.(Nor do they necessarily get put down, only if there is a danger they will do it again).

So, okay, let's say he is not given any of these things. In the past people would be released from prison with the price of a bus fare into town. Nowhere to sleep, no money for food, no income, no job...how long before they have to turn to crime just to survive? And looking at some of the answers here, there is plenty enough discrimination against someone who's been in jail, that it might take them a long long time to find a job.

So to be able to get rehabilitated, they have to be given a start. There ARE poor families, but they have a roof over their heads, some clothes to wear, and some income. If they have no job they ARE given government support, and the same for housing. A person fresh out of prison has a lot LESS than a poor family, and in many ways a smaller chance of getting them for himself, because of discrimination.

It is cheaper for the government to set them up to survive on their own and make a life for themselves. It is highly expensive to keep people in jail, not because they get luxury accommodation or food, but for the number of staff needed to run the place, and the upkeep of the buildings themselves. If people are set up to have a good chance of not going back to prison, the government makes a big saving.

It is also the fair thing to do for a person who has done their time. It is not right to keep punishing them for the rest of their lives, by stopping them from having one.

If you are going to bring up families, what about the ex-prisoner's family? let's have a big tear-jerker for them, too. This has precious little with his human rights. But anyone who knows the difference between right and wrong should know not to even question the permanence of human rights. Take them away from one, then another, then another, in the end who has any left?

Deciding that some people are "not human enough" to have human rights is the basis for slavery and genocide. Even deciding on an individual basis has led to horrific abuses in the past.  If the man is not human he should not have been sent to prison in the first place. If the man is human enough to have been sent to jail, he has human rights, end of story.

Answer 5

He should have no human rights, he should have tattooed on his forehead "MURDERER", this should be painted on all his clothes so he stands out for everyone to see what he is, I hope he comes to a bad end, such as being run over by a ten wheel heavy goods truck

Answer 6

Life to me means life but in our country thats is 25 year but after 12 years they can be released on licence i think this i wrong. To apply the death sentance i believe in but then that is an easy way out. I think the law should change and there fore I would lock them up until the day they died. They have no rights left after they have killed someone.

Answer 7

A killer should have the right to be executed in a humane way.

Unless there is doubt as to his guilt or extenuating circumstances, a murderer should be executed shortly after being proven guilty.  He should not be given free room and board for life as his punishment.  He should be put to sleep first, then executed.

Answer 8

Sounds like a real liberal treatment for a convicted killer. Not knowing the circumstances of the killing and any mitigating facts it is hard to say if 12 years is enough time to serve.  But in no case is a home,car,allowance and 24 hour police protection warrented. Unless of course all people get 24 hour panic button protection.

Answer 9

thats life luxury

most people these day don't even have cars

Answer 10

the only right for a killer, regardless of age is a lethal injection. they are the filth and scum of the world and should be disposed of as quickly as possible

Answer 11

Due to leftist dominance in law and in the media, we now have wonderful things like political correctness and human rights protection for the lowest scum of society (murderers, pedophiles, rapists). Yet, people who try to defend themselves, are getting punished more and more often, despite the state failing to defend them when they promise to.

I live in a very liberal state in the US, and in this state, if someone breaks into your house and falls down your stairs they can sue you for hurting their back. Yet, if you hurt them trying to defend yourself, you'll get punished for it. Messed up sense of justice!

Answer 12

Yes of course they should have human rights. If we lower ourselves to treat them with cruelty and inhumanity, what does that make us-no better than them. Also of course that does not make right what they have done. Children very often do not have a clear idea of right and wrong. If they have been brought up on a diet of violent videos even less so. Also bear in mind that innocent people are convicted of crimes-sometimes for whatever reason they even confess even though they did not do it. The police of course are anxious to obtain a conviction-they have a duty to protect society-but not all policemen are scrupulous! For this reason I am against the death penalty apart from it being barbaric and studies have shown that it does not deter in any event.

If you with due process of law put an innocent man (or woman) to death that is indescribably wrong and nothing can excuse it.

If a person has served the sentence imposed upon them and they are released they have served their time. If you think that they should not have protection then perhaps they should not be released but this is worse than being executed if you do not give the person the chance to make good. In any event no two crimes are ever exactly the same and we give the power of sentencing into the hands of people who are more skilled than us. If you want to change the system try to do so. That's what democracy is about. Would you prefer a dictatorship.?

Answer 13

the worst thing is that our taxes are going towards paying for new lives for these monsters

Answer 14

Yes because they might have had a change of heart. nnocent untul provel guilty as they say also lol

Answer 15

Yes.

Answer 16

No they don't care about their victim's Human Rights when they take their life.

Answer 17

Yes. Its fundamental to a civilized society.

Answer 18

Yes, human rights have nothing to do with what a killer receives after jail.

Answer 19

Just watch the movie, "Felon", you will see just how bad it is and it isn't just a movie, things like that happen all the time.

Some comes to rob you, they get hurt whilst you defend your family, if the robber gets hurt or dies, you face arrest charges, how messed up is that, you had no control on wether they came to rob you, but you end up incacerated, because, you defened yourself, your family and your home, all because some crackhead comes looking for quick money.

Answer 20

any one who takes a life should lose their human rights. they did not consider the rights of their victims, so theirs should not be considered. that's why Britain is the death and crime capital of Europe. we don't have punishment for  criminals any more. they 'in fact' have more rights than the victims. (how sic and depraved is that?)  a man can rape a child, strange her and bury her in a shallow grave, and the police have to call him sir, he has to have what ever food he wants and is protected from harm...i believe it to be the sickest most disgusting thing that the little child is instantly forgotten in the rush to make the monster who raped and killed her comfortable. we need to think about sending this invisible army of do gooders to scyciatrists to have their sic twisted minds looked at. i believe them to be sicker than the killers and pedo's they protect.

Answer 21

some people are just mental so they do things like this but even though it has destroyed someones life he still has human right as he is a human and that applies to anyone in this world that is a human even if they have destroyed a country or anything they still have their HUMAN rights. i no it sounds stupid but it explains it in its name HUMAN rights.these are things that we cant take away from people.sorry i no its not fair but this is life.good luck. :)

Answer 22

Yes, criminals have rights, such as the right not to be tortured.  Immigrant killers have rights, but they are nevertheless deported, so if you really want to lower crime, in the interest of public safety, you have to deport serious native born American criminals to whatever African country you can bribe to take them. At least then, since immigrant criminals are already deported, native born American citizenship would be based on worth for the 1st time ever. We could even deport our criminals to serve their prison sentences in African prisons and save money that way.

The system now is a native born criminal can take his country for granted no matter what he plans to do, and he can live down the street from you without you knowing he's there. Our criminals let you know that by bragging about their crimes, but we choose to let them do that.

Answer 23

Killers and criminals get treated better than the victims.

The killers have no respect for the victims human rights so why should they get treated better.

Criminals get lots of money spent on them when in prison and when released. Just look at the boys who killed Jamie Bulger they have had over a million pounds spent on the for their own protection. Well who was protecting poor little Jamie when they killed him?

The bible had it right, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life.

America has got it right with the electric chair and i think this country should follow suit as it will save us taxpayers a fortune having to feed people who have broken the law.

Answer 24

in some ways, if they are truly regretful for what they have done, it shows that they are being human, and admit to making a mistake, thereofre they should be allowed human rights.

however, if they show no regret, then i think that they arent being human, therefore shouldnt be allowed human rights

Answer 25

No, and it shouldn't be limited to killers either.

Any one comiiting a crime should be stripped of these! It makes a mockery of out of the justice system.

Claiming because their cell mattress is too hard, aahhh, poor b*stard.

Answer 26

Yes because not all killers are evil. Serial killers like the Yorkshire ripper have their freedom taken from them, which is the most fundamental human right, because they get life without parole which means they die in prison. Some killers are depressed or kill their partner because of abuse or get into a fight and kill someone in defence. They have the right to rehabilitation and to be released if they behave well after 15 years.

Answer 27

i say that's a sick sick man he shouldn't get that good of a life after what he's done dirty murderer!

Answer 28

Liberals think it's just fine.