From the BBC They have already applied once and been turned down by a vote of 4-3. This apparantly goes against their human right, but what about the human rights of the person he killed? Surely laws need to be updated to reflect this, the person he killed may have been wanting children and obviously would have been wanting his private life. So why should any killer get what they removed from someone else? I know that that in itself currently contravines the human rights but why can't this happen? Is there something I haven't thought of? There is an appeal from 2004 that this comes from.
I'm sure I heard somewhere that a lot of prisons give significant perks to some prisoners such as SkyTV and mobile phones for "good behaviour"
I would like to see prisons being used a punishment dealt out dealt out for violating someone else's human rights and as such you are now locked up and your own rights reduced to food, shealter and basic medical treatments. we'll keep you alive but in no way comfortable and that goes across the board for murderers to the mutlimillion fraudsters.
That's how I see it. But prisons seem to be granting more and more human rights to prisoners these days. My GF's parents are both prison guards and i've heard a few stories that detail prisoners having kettles, TV's, gourmet food etc, and basically everything to make a nicely comfortable flat that some people can't even afford on the outside. Prisoners need to be treated like scum, because well, they are scum. Only the barest essentials should be made available. A toilet, running water, and staple food like rice. Just like chinese prisons. To the point, I don't believe this man should have the right to have a child while he is serving his sentence. He lost that right when he comitted his crime. If he is released, then fine, he can have his child. If he's too old, too bad. His loss.
Awww - how romantic So not only is taxpayers money probably being spent on this appeal, but then the cost of at least one go at artificial insemination (not a guaranteed success at 48, I'm guessing?), and if it is successful the welcoming arms of the welfare state beckon; you couldn't make it up really could you? ^ Lots of assumptions there, I know. Being in jail and hence unable to take part in a physical relationship - one of the best forms of contraception there is, perhaps?
Convicted criminals should not have the same rights as law abiding citizens whilst they are incarcerated as far as I'm concerned, so tough luck to him! Why should a criminal, a person who has violated the human rights of another (in this case, by killing them), be entitled to the same rights as a person who obeys the law? Some human rights should come with responsibilities - if you do not adher to these (and I should think 'don't murder somebody' is a pretty easy responsibility to live by) then you waive your entitlement to some of the other more priveleged 'rights'. I realise for some the idea of taking away rights from prisoners is a slippery slope towards all kinds of 'bad' things, like torture and so forth. I'm not suggesting we waive *all* rights for convicted criminals - but if we start to uphold all or a large proportion of those granted to law abiding citizens (and the right to have children is surely towards the more priveleged end of any rights spectrum with basic needs such as food, water, freedom from pain etc at the other end) surely serves to undermine prison as a punishment?
I can't believe how lowly some people here think of criminals. Not everyone who is sent to prison is suddenly the scum of the earth. No one here has a right to say how prisoners should be treated until they actually experience living in a prison themselves. Firstly there's going to be a massive mix of people in prison from your average teenage music pirate to big corporate bosses who thought they could get away with a certain amount of tax evasion to your murderers and rapists. Are you saying all those people should be treated in the same way? It would be hard enough living with such a mix of people in any situation let alone when you're in a tiny cell for half the time. People don't seem to consider the psychological punishment that prisoners undoubtedly go through to one extent or another. I think rewarding good behaviour with luxury items like TVs and kettles can only be a good thing. Obviously though there is a certain limit to a person's human rights in any prison. Contact with the outside world should be limited. There should be a limit to how many freedoms can be earned by a particular individual. I'm not sure if the right to father a child should be denied or not. Don't they allow conjugal visits to prisons in the UK? Isn't that basically the same right? I don't think it should be allowed to prisoners with long term sentences though simply because they cannot support the child from prison.
The problem with that logic is that if you treat people like scum, well, they remain scum. Even after release. Prison is not only punishment or containment, but is also supposed to offer rehabilitation. A chance to repent, reflect and reboot, so to speak. But valid ones. If the mother has a prison record, her fitness as a mother needs to be at least examined (her current lifestyle choices heavily go against her already, in my opinion, for reasons I'll explain below). At age 48 there is also a significantly increased risk of birth defects. Then there is the question of how this child is going to be supported if daddy is in prison, and mommy not (I suspect) quite a financially independent career woman. Sounds to me that both want to have their cake and eat it: make disasterous life choices and still play happy families as if they were Dick and Jane from the suburbs. They want to be able to screw up yet deny any responsibility for their actions. This is typical immature, dysfunctional thinking which makes for very unfit parents indeed. Now this may seem contradictory to my previous comment about rehabilitation, but it is not. People do deserve a second chance but that does not mean they get to disavow the consequences of their previous actions. And some of those may be very long-term consequences, which affect those second chances. That may not always seem fair, but life doesn't owe us anything. It was here first.
Typically, when we say scum of the Earth, I think we all mean people facing long sentences, like drug dealers, rapists, murderers child molesters etc. But I feel anyone who feels they can abuse the law, no matter how small a deed, need to be harshly punished, not given a house where the rent is free. They have all commited a crime against the nation, so yes, I think they should be treated fairly similarly. However, there should be a high and a low point. The high's should be no higher than a bedroom in a council house. And the lows no lower than a chinese or viatnamese prison. Smaller crimes should give you certain perks over people serving life sentences. But nothing more than meat with your rice, or a seat for your toilet, plus the obvious benefit of a shorter stay. The stricter the punishments, the less re-offenders we'll see, and the less crime we'll see. I don't mean to say we should be erecting new guantanamo's by any means. Just need to tone down the free TV, gourmet meals and the ability to boil their own urine and throw it at officers performing cell checks like in a story from my GF's mother was talking about. She's also told me of people wanting to come back to prison because they get more than they could afford outside. Good in my opinion. The more they're punished the more they'll understand the phrase: "Don't fcuk with the law" Yes, but I think they should only be allowed regulated periods for TV, like 2 or 3 hours a week. Perhaps the installment of a TV card you can top up. If you do prison services like cleaning etc, you get some points, and can use these how you want. TV, and extra chocolate bar, something like that. Not the infinite use of one. Agreed on that last part. I'm not too sure what visits are allowed in the UK. I know in america they have the right to see their loved one in a private environment, not sure how that works over here.
You can obviously argue that the more you punish someone the less they will respect your authority and the more likely they will re-offend. The truth is there are some people who will respond well to being treated well and others that require much stricter punishments. I don't think all prisoners should suffer because of the behaviour of those that won't respond to any efforts to rehabilitate them. I think a balanced system of treating prisoners based on how they behave is the best and only possible solution. People who believe that everyone who breaks the law is the same are just crazy.
Research suggests differently. As always, life is not that simple... Many people who commit brutal crimes do so because they have been brutalised themselves. To brutalise them further does not change the pattern, but enhance it. This does not mean that we should go all soft on them, but the punishment must fit the crime, there must be opportunity for redemption and reward for learning to make better choices.
But then what is there to prevent them from cheating the system. They can act all well and good, recieve the benefits of good behaviour, and once placed back in society when they still haven't learned anything, and basically recieved all the free perks (reserved for people who have genuinely repented their misdeed) when they've murdered, raped or molested someone. I think the only part of the punishment that should fit the crime, is the number of years served.
