Image via WikipediaA recent event prompts me to ask a serious question. The British Parliament, in order to conform to European Law, has decided to allow convicted prisoners the vote. It is doing this simply because it would otherwise face costly law suits under Human Rights legislation.
My question is this: We have a Bill of Human Rights. Why do we not have a Bill of Human Responsibilities?
Everything in nature has an opposite – good/bad, dark/light, big/small etc. Surely we should understand that our laws need to reflect natural laws? If we have a written statute that guarantees human beings certain inalienable rights, is it not sensible to have similar legislation dealing with human responsibilities?
The Bill of Human Rights is constantly used in courts to back up the often spurious claims of offenders, criminals and other anti-social groups and individuals. It seems to me that if a person wants the backing of the law, they must conform to that law themselves. By breaking that agreement, they surely place themselves voluntarily outside the protection of the law, don’t they? No one forces an individual to break the law. Okay, I accept that in certain countries and under certain regimes there are laws which we, in the so-called free world, hold as abhorrent. It is possible for such laws to be excluded from any international agreement on responsibilities.
I suggest that the UN, as the most fitting international organisation, should set up a discussion with all the nations of the world to discuss the idea of a Bill of Human Responsibilities, which, once enacted, could be used to counter the spurious claims of terrorists, murderers, rapists etc who use the Bill of Human Rights to gain undue rights. It might also make people a little less likely to commit certain crimes if universal legislation existed to outlaw harm to others.
I’d be interested in all opinions on this and invite your comments and observations.
5 comments:
Human Responsibilities...a quite interesting notion, but wow, trying to get concensus on this without it being watered down to the point of meaninglessness...
I only think Human Responsability would work if we went back to the days of actual penal colonies or exile states. Taking away rights because a crime was committed is tantamount to stripping citizenship. Instead of continuing to punish someone by forcing them to live in the country without the benefits of the country, let them go somewhere else.
The US also takes away convicts right to vote. And, though not necessary in the UK, felons can't own guns. Two things that are part of the foundation of our country.
On top of it, felons have a harder time getting jobs, because of background checks. People look down on them, and consider them scum, and won't trust them.
People are punished unduly past the terms of the sentence. Does the phrase "time served" not mean anything anymore? You sell drugs, you spend five years in jail, THAT'S your punishment. To them forbid them from certain jobs, or from participating in choosing their leaders, or (in some states) not being able to rent an apartment is cruel and unusual punishment.
Imagine if you were eighteen, and your buddies egged you into joyriding, and you steal a car. You get caught, and you now have to spend three years in jail with actual hardened bad guys. The kind of guys that will knife you for breathing too loud. You make it through, you finish your punishment, and you know how foolish you were. You will never do anything so stupid ever again, and will never break the law. You don't even jaywalk anymore.
But because you stole a car once, you no longer get to have a voice. People see the "convict" on your job application, and they sneer at you. No one wants to hear how you learned from your mistakes. They simply will not trust you because you're a *cruel hisses* criminal.
That lack of trust, and the inability to actually consider a person as having served their punishment only causes recidivism. Criminals are going to keep being criminals because they aren't allowed to be anything but criminals. Like an alcoholic who keeps being an alcoholic because his wife keeps buying him the liquor.
While I advocate not taking away a felon's rights, I also advocate proper punishments. Capital punishments. Rapists and murders should be killed. Drunk driver kills someone, they should die. Bad checks or having illegal substances should be community service.
Things like that. But that would also require an overhaul of our criminal justice system. (Not sure about the UK)
Terry; yes, it would be difficult, but they managed it for the Human Rights issue - difficult doesn't have to mean impossible, does it?
Raven: You seem to be equating the idea of a Bill of Human Responsibilities with the punishment system. Whilst the two are obviously linked, I don't think they are the same thing. Clearly the system of punishment doesn't work, either as a deterrent or as a means of preventing re-offending. Almost all justice systems merely lock away offenders for a time, during which they learn their criminal craft in more detail, and then let them back out to re-offend.
My feeling, my idea, is to put something in place that would at least make people pause for thought before committing a crime. Knowing that society had generic rules of conduct, rather than the hotchpotch of specific laws we currently use, might make it clearer to the criminally inclined what a crime is and what effect it might have on the perpetrator.
As for punishment, my own view is that we in the UK, and I suspect the USA as well, try to punish and rehabilitate in the same institution. You can't expect a regime charged with punishment to also deal with the sensitive issues around rehabilitation: the two are opposites. From a punishment point of view, I would advocate a harsh period of actual punishment, in the form of hard labour, followed by a period in a more liberal institute where the bad habits of a lifetime could be dealt with and altered by therapy, education or whatever the individual needed to become a better citizen. Society needs its criminals to be punished, and i understand that. But around 90% of the people in our prisons actually suffer from some form of mental illness. Surely it makes more sense to treat this, where possible, than to ignore it and allow the individuals to continue in their life of crime to everyone's disadvantage?
If human responsibilities aren't to be used as ways to enforce punishments, what are they for? By the description you've posted, they're to be used to tell people they can't keep their right because they did something wrong. Which sounds about like how it is now.
And who's rules of conduct would we take? I for one firmly believe in an eye for eye. I think the threat of having the person you've just robbed defend themself and kill you is good food for thought. But other people don't agree with that, and think pacifism is the better way? Which of us should be allowed to tell the other what their responsibility is.
I will agree that the "justice" system is majorly screwed up. At least in the States, they haven't tried to rehabilitate anyone in decades. There's more money to be had in people coming back in and out. Not that everyone learns to be a better criminal behind bars. Some do, but some honestly just want to move on with their lives.
So would one of the tenants of these human responsibilities be to actually treat criminals as human beings?
What exactly is a mental illness? At what level is a sociopath really sick, as opposed to just different than other people? Is there really mental illness, or just someone else trying to make a scapegoat, or to make another buck out of the prison economy?
Raven, this is precisely the sort of debate I was hoping to sponsor here: just wish a few more would join in!
The idea is to have a piece of world-wide legislation in place that can be used by the courts and prosecuting authorities as a counter to the currently undefended actions brought by criminals, etc, under the Bill of Human Rights.
The Rights issue is currently lauded by many institutions and used in education to bolster the Rights of human beings in all manner of circumstances. I have no problem with that. But, at present, there is no similar point of focus or legislation which can be used to remind people of their Responsibilities as human beings. (Simple things, like it is not acceptable to kill people who have different beliefs, etc) It is this which I hope to encourage with my suggestion here; a means to focus attention on Responsibility and a way to counter spurious claims to Rights.
What justice systems do as a result is a slightly different issue, as is the degree and method of punishment.
Whilst I understand your concern about the use of mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour, it is now fairly well established that many mental illnesses are as real as a broken leg is as a physical injury. But that is a different topic and one I hope to visit later in this series.
Post a Comment