European Politics Thread.

[Bordoy 0]

When they have commited a crime, they have put themselves beyond the law of the state. Therefore all privelages should be took away. Once committed, a criminal effectively waives his or her rights to the freedoms the rest of us law-abiding citizens enjoy.  

So they don't have a right to a fair trial, humane treatment (i.e. food and clothing), or right to an attorney, etc..????

Sounds like you want all prisons to be like Guantanamo...

Obviuosly, I didn't mean all prison to go that far. Yes they should get food, clothing, fair trial etc.

Quote[/b] ]Whose human rights did I violate when I leaked that secret goverment paper detailing some gross bureaucratic oversight? Whose human rights did I violate when I injected some substance into my body? Whose human rights did I violate when I modded my game console? Whose human rights did I violate when I refused to allow myself to be searched by a police officer?

In the UK, I doubt you will get a prison sentance for any of them.

Maybe they should do a two-tier system. 'minor' crimes allowed to vote, but 'major' crimes means no vote.

Or is this dicrimination?

[EiZei 0]

Maybe they should do a two-tier system. 'minor' crimes allowed to vote, but 'major' crimes means no vote.

So who gets to decide what is a "major" crime? The goverment?

I am a lot more afraid of goverments than criminals, even the most depraved squad of serial killers can't achieve even a fraction of what even a second rate autocrat regime can do.

Quote[/b] ]In the UK, I doubt you will get a prison sentance for any of them.

You don't get prison sentences for drug crimes? The official secrets act and EUCD based laws have been revoked?

Quote[/b] ]

Obviuosly, I didn't mean all prison to go that far. Yes they should get food, clothing, fair trial etc.

I consider the right to vote at least as important as free food and healthcare, do you?

[Ares1978 0]

Maybe they should do a two-tier system. 'minor' crimes allowed to vote, but 'major' crimes means no vote.

So who gets to decide what is a "major" crime? The goverment?

Sure, why not? After all, in a democracy the folks in charge represent the people, and they already decide what is a crime and what isn't. Deciding what is a major crime is not that big a deal.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Well, Eizei, who would you have deciding your fate; the politicians who a majority (albeit of stupid people) have elected to represent you in Government, and thus the Judiciary which rules upon you,

Or a Court made up of foreigners?

We have enough bloody appelate courts in Britain without someone who's committed a crime going over the head of his countrymen so he can vote.

Rights for those incarcerated; YES

Votes for those incarcerated; NO

When they committed a crime, AND WERE CONVICTED OF THAT CRIME, they have turned their back on society and therefore should temprorarily have no say in how that society is run.

And Eizei,

"Whose human rights did I violate when I leaked that secret goverment paper detailing some gross bureaucratic oversight?"

If you're a general member of the public, okay - revealing the incompetence of a government is your duty, let alone a right, but if you happened to sign a thing called an Official Secrets Act, then open your mouth to the press, quite frankly you deserve to be hung for being so naive and obtuse in the first place. e.g. David Shayler a few years back, and the Israeli Nuclear Engineer whose name I can't remember quite now.

I would, however, like to know where this whole "Votes for Prisoners" thing came from' perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to your source, Bordoy?

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Well, Eizei, who would you have deciding your fate; the politicians who a majority (albeit of stupid people) have elected to represent you in Government, and thus the Judiciary which rules upon you,

Or a Court made up of foreigners?

The same people who the inmates were not allowed to vote for or against in the first place?

Quote[/b] ]

When they committed a crime, AND WERE CONVICTED OF THAT CRIME, they have turned their back on society and therefore should temprorarily have no say in how that society is run.

Like I said, many things have been crimes in the past while many things that were not illegal are now illegal. Law is supposed to be built around society, not the other way.

Quote[/b] ]

And Eizei,

"Whose human rights did I violate when I leaked that secret goverment paper detailing some gross bureaucratic oversight?"

If you're a general member of the public, okay - revealing the incompetence of a government is your duty, let alone a right, but if you happened to sign a thing called an Official Secrets Act, then open your mouth to the press, quite frankly you deserve to be hung for being so naive and obtuse in the first place. e.g. David Shayler a few years back, and the Israeli Nuclear Engineer whose name I can't remember quite now.

As a matter of fact signing the official secrets paper does'nt mean shit in reality, it's just merely a "reminder" (read: the lawyer way to threaten you). The act applies even if you do not sign shit. Or that at least how I remember it, I am not that experienced with the british legal system.

In fact I would really like to know if the voting rights are permanently removed for felons like in certain US states or is the loss just temporary?

[Ares1978 0]

The same people who the inmates were not allowed to vote for or against in the first place?

Weren't they allowed to vote before becoming inmates?

[EiZei 0]

The same people who the inmates were not allowed to vote for or against in the first place?

Weren't they allowed to vote before becoming inmates?

Well.. the changes are the line-up has been changed after that.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]So who gets to decide what is a "major" crime? The goverment?

I am a lot more afraid of goverments than criminals, even the most depraved squad of serial killers can't achieve even a fraction of what even a second rate autocrat regime can do.

Yes, the goverment. It isn't hard, but they could do "no votes for sentances over x years" or something.

Quote[/b] ]You don't get prison sentences for drug crimes? The official secrets act and EUCD based laws have been revoked?

You said taking drugs. In the UK, you will probably get something like 100 hours community service or a fine.

Quote[/b] ]I consider the right to vote at least as important as free food and healthcare, do you?

Yes, but the voters being convicts which have been proven guilty of commiting their crimes against the state and it's people, why should they be allowed to vote?

Quote[/b] ]Law is supposed to be built around society, not the other way.

So, if everyone feels the need to start killing and it becomes something what people like doing, should murder be legal??

That was an extreme case, but I think you get the point, just apply to a less extreme case.

Quote[/b] ]I would, however, like to know where this whole "Votes for Prisoners" thing came from' perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to your source, Bordoy?

Of course mate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4490701.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4314218.stm

Quote[/b] ]Lord Firkin, said: "It has been the view of successive governments, including this government, that persons who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence should forfeit the right to have a say in how the country is governed while they are detained."

Lord Filkin went on: "For many years it has been part of our society's tradition that, when people are imprisoned, they lose a range of rights, one of which is the right to participate in elections."

After the grand council upheld that ruling, shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said it would be "ludicrous" to give prisoners the right to vote.

"If convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice," he said.

[denoir 0]

Yes, but the voters being convicts which have been proven guilty of commiting their crimes against the state and it's people, why should they be allowed to vote?

Just because the criminals break the law, doesn't allow the state to do the same. Voting is a human right and the state has agreed to respect them by signing the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you want to remove that right, why not remove others? Do you think that the state should be allowed to torture people in prison? If not, why? I mean these are convicted criminals, right?

[Ares1978 0]

So, if everyone feels the need to start killing and it becomes something what people like doing, should murder be legal??    

That was an extreme case, but I think you get the point, just apply to a less extreme case.

Yes, it should. Laws exist for one purpose: to provide a set of rules that most citizens accept. If the people wants murder to be legal in their society, why should it be illegal? If you lived in that society, you would probably support it anyway.

People use extreme examples for a reason. Because of the negative emotional charge extreme examples such as murder have, the tactic often distracts the other party even though the basic principle stays the same. Yes, I too think murder is bad (well, at least in some cases), but a society that wants murder to be legal should get its wish.

If you want to remove that right, why not remove others? Do you think that the state should be allowed to torture people in prison? If not, why? I mean these are convicted criminals, right?

Please define torture. Being locked up in a small room for several years isn't torture?

Point is, you can't deal with criminals without resorting to some form of torture. Prison isn't supposed to be nice, or there is no point letting people out again. Or locking them up in the first place, depending on how you look at it. Every single country tortures criminals, some more than others. It's a way of discouraging people from committing crimes. Having prisons and forbidding torture is fundamentally hypocritical. And please keep in mind that I'm not suggesting (at this point) that prisoners should be tortured nor that prisons should be abolished.

[Bordoy 0]

Yes, but the voters being convicts which have been proven guilty of commiting their crimes against the state and it's people, why should they be allowed to vote?

Just because the criminals break the law, doesn't allow the state to do the same. Voting is a human right and the state has agreed to respect them by signing the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If you want to remove that right, why not remove others? Do you think that the state should be allowed to torture people in prison? If not, why? I mean these are convicted criminals, right?

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Tell that to the people who have lost loved ones and finding out that the human rights convention helps the criminals

Article 29: In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Seems the criminals broke the human rights act, no?

What is the point in having a prison if they get everything?

Quote[/b] ]Yes, it should. Laws exist for one purpose: to provide a set of rules that most citizens accept. If the people wants murder to be legal in their society, why should it be illegal? If you lived in that society, you would probably support it anyway.

Depends on your viewpoint. i think the state should keep people within boundries or anarchy will presume.

[denoir 0]

Please define torture. Being locked up in a small room for several years isn't torture?

Point is, you can't deal with criminals without resorting to some form of torture. Prison isn't supposed to be nice, or there is no point letting people out again. Or locking them up in the first place, depending on how you look at it. Every single country tortures criminals, some more than others. It's a way of discouraging people from committing crimes. Having prisons and forbidding torture is fundamentally hypocritical. And please keep in mind that I'm not suggesting (at this point) that prisoners should be tortured nor that prisons should be abolished.

For all practical purposes, we can go for one of the legal definitions of torture vs. deprivation of liberty.

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:

Quote[/b] ]

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

© the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

While article 3 states that:

Quote[/b] ]No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Hence, by the ECHR, lawful deprivation of liberty does not equal torture.

Quote[/b] ]Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Tell that to the people who have lost loved ones and finding out that the human rights convention helps the criminals

Article 29: In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Seems the criminals broke the human rights act, no?

Bordoy, it's really not difficult to understand - just because some individuals break the rules does not mean that the state can do the same. The same way during war, if the enemy kills and tortures your civilian population, it does not give you the right to kill and torture their civilian population.

Regarding the victims and the families of the victims, you are talking about revenge, not law. There is no place for revenge in a civilized society. Our system is based on stability through legalism and not on the primitive urge of taking the action that makes you feel good. The principle of not abusing prisoners is not for the prisoners' sake. It's for the sake of society, so that it can set a moral standard that abuse is not alright.

The same goes for voting. We live in a society that says that every adult has the right to vote. That's a very important principle and upholding it is far more important than preventing a few criminals from voting.

And finally, you have to understand why voting for prisoners is actually and important things. A democracy gets its stability by assuming that people in power can abuse that power - the system of civil rights etc is in place to prevent a government abusing its citizens. In this context, we're talking about political prisoners. Should a government come into power that wishes to jail dissidents, not letting people behind bars vote would be an excellent way of staying in power. In the UK, given the new absurd proposed anti-Terror laws, this is more real than you might think. If they pass, the government will be able to lock people up for three months without charging them with anything.

So in theory, the next election, the government could round up the opposition, lock them up temporarily and thus prevent their political activities. And it would be quite legal.

That's a major failure of a democratic system when it allows such loopholes.

Quote[/b] ]What is the point in having a prison if they get everything?

They are still very much locked up, which to most people is worse than being free. So it is indeed a punishment, and you keep them off the streets. (Although the trend is rehabilitation rather than punishment)

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ](e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants ;

Hey does that mean you can lock up hobo's?

[Ares1978 0]

For all practical purposes, we can go for one of the legal definitions of torture vs. deprivation of liberty.

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:

Quote[/b] ]

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

While article 3 states that:

Quote[/b] ]No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Hence, by the ECHR, lawful deprivation of liberty does not equal torture.

So where's the ECHR's definition of torture?

And for all intents and purposes, article 5 is just an exception to article 3. "You can't torture people, unless you do it this way." When it comes to any declarations of human rights, my Bullshit-O-Meter always goes right off the scale.

A dictionary would actually be the first place I'd look if I'd wan't to know the real definition of torture.

Quote[/b] ](e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants ;

Hey does that mean you can lock up hobo's?

Well why not? They are smelly and unattractive. They MUST be locked up.  (sarcasm)

Seriously though, what kind of asshole would even want to lock people up for being vagrants?

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]And finally, you have to understand why voting for prisoners is actually and important things. A democracy gets its stability by assuming that people in power can abuse that power - the system of civil rights etc is in place to prevent a government abusing its citizens. In this context, we're talking about political prisoners. Should a government come into power that wishes to jail dissidents, not letting people behind bars vote would be an excellent way of staying in power.

Except this UK law has been in for more then 100 years and has seen different goverment obviously.

[Supah 0]

Seriously though, what kind of asshole would even want to lock people up for being vagrants?

Well me basically? Over here vagrants and hobo's are responsible for the majority of crime and its not like their doing themselves a lot of good. Besides having a group of them hanging out in front of your bussiness virtually mugging your customers when they leave for change doesn't really help bussiness. I doubt their family is that glad with them dying of overdoses on the streets. I am all for imprisonment with therapy and forced rehab.

[GoOB 0]

Well me basically? Over here vagrants and hobo's are responsible for the majority of crime and its not like their doing themselves a lot of good. Besides having a group of them hanging out in front of your bussiness virtually mugging your customers when they leave for change doesn't really help bussiness. I doubt their family is that glad with them dying of overdoses on the streets. I am all for imprisonment with therapy and forced rehab.

If they commit crimes the cops can arrest them, no? Arresting people for the simple reason that they couldn't handle being a part of society for one reason or another, is just plain sick. They are human beings, not just some disturbance in the lives of the average joe/corporate ventures.

Get some perspective, talk to a few homeless people and see what theyv'e been through before you dismiss them as drug addicts and criminals. With that attitude your definatley in for a big surprise.

I have two or three homless friends, one of which I knew before he became homeless. They are truly some of the finest people I have met, theyv'e gone through so much shit, some because of themselves (mental illness in one case), and some because of the fact that todays society isn't really easy to adapt to for everyone. So, as I said. Get yourself some perspective.

[Supah 0]

Well me basically? Over here vagrants and hobo's are responsible for the majority of crime and its not like their doing themselves a lot of good. Besides having a group of them hanging out in front of your bussiness virtually mugging your customers when they leave for change doesn't really help bussiness. I doubt their family is that glad with them dying of overdoses on the streets. I am all for imprisonment with therapy and forced rehab.

If they commit crimes the cops can arrest them, no? Arresting people for the simple reason that they couldn't handle being a part of society for one reason or another, is just plain sick. They are human beings, not just some disturbance in the lives of the average joe/corporate ventures.

Get some perspective, talk to a few homeless people and see what theyv'e been through before you dismiss them as drug addicts and criminals. With that attitude your definatley in for a big surprise.

I have two or three homless friends, one of which I knew before he became homeless. They are truly some of the finest people I have met, theyv'e gone through so much shit, some because of themselves (mental illness in one case), and some because of the fact that todays society isn't really easy to adapt to for everyone. So, as I said. Get yourself some perspective.

Come on goOB, I don't know what romantic perspective you've been led on but most homeless people here are either:

1. Junkies

2. Alcoholics

3. Mental Patients

Now how do I know this? I've tried to talk to them myself, but that doesnt really get you anywhere with them "BWLEUHAKRHJKAGB" wow .. interesting. I have a good number of friends who work in the care institutions that help them as much as they can and I have a few friends in the police force. upto 70% of burglaries in homes and allmost all break ins into cars are down to homeless people trying to get money for booze/drugs. The portion that SHOULD be in a mental institution under forced admission but cant because they havent hurt themself or others bad enough are often psychotic. I have a family member who is a psychotic and was almost a vagrant too if it wasnt for a local police officer who took a risk. Do you think it does those people any good "they have the right to not be able to cope with society"? Tell that to their parents and family. There is nothing wrong with helping people against their will. With your logic the best thing to do with a anorexic would be to let them starve, they dont want help do they? I feel unvoluntary removal of freedom and therapy is the best solution.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I feel unvoluntary removal of freedom and therapy is the best solution.

Are you sure of what you´re saying ?

Quote[/b] ]unvoluntary...therapy

Don´t you see the glitch ?

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]I feel unvoluntary removal of freedom and therapy is the best solution.

Are you sure of what you´re saying ?

Quote[/b] ]unvoluntary...therapy

Don´t you see the glitch ?

No having seen this with a family member sometimes a certain matter of cohersion is needed and helpfull when people do not want to cooperate with therapy.

[Balschoiw 0]

Are there any numbers that show how people fall back into addiction over the years after an enforced therapy ?

This doesn´t sound like a sound solution to me supah.

It sounds like lobotomy and electro-shocks

[Supah 0]

Are there any numbers that show how people fall back into addiction over the years after an enforced therapy ?

This doesn´t sound like a sound solution to me supah.

It sounds like lobotomy and electro-shocks

It wont work with some people it will with others. Better to have tried and failed then to not have tried at all. I simply fail to see the good we do these people, their next of kin or society as a whole by letting them die in the gutter over overdoses. Alcoholism is becoming very treatable with certain medication. ATM their just left to run wild and be a nuisance. Ever have someone break into your house and shit in your couch? Happened to some friends of mine. All the stuff they worked hard for destroyed (not even stolen just trashed) and used needles everywhere. But oh yes that person has the right to not be too in touch with society, whiney burglary victims!

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]Civilians are believed to be among 60 people killed

in clashes between police and rebels in Russia's volatile North

Caucasus, say Russian media reports.

Local officials say 50 gunmen were killed in the city of Nalchik,

the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria province.

Five police officers have also died, and several are being

hostage in a police station, a Kremlin envoy says.

Militants from nearby Chechnya say they attacked government

buildings, according to a pro-rebel website.

Kabardino-Balkaria lies close to war-ravaged Chechnya.

A school and the city's airport, as well as government

buildings, were all caught up in the running gun-battles.

'Extremist's arrest'

Regional President Arsen Kanokov told Itar-Tass news agency

that a third of the 150 rebels who took part in attacks had

been killed.

He also said 12 civilians had been killed.

Dmitry Kozak, President Vladimir Putin's special envoy to the

area, told Russian television that an operation was under way

to free hostages from No 3 police precinct. He did not say how

many hostages were being held.

A source at Nalchik's Republican Hospital told Ekho Moskvy

radio that 20 dead had been brought in, "all people in uniform".

At least 40 injured people had been taken to the hospital, with

more arriving all the time, the source added.

One unidentified security official has told Russian news agency

RIA that the reason for the attack was the arrest on

Wednesday of at least one radical extremist.

Frantic parents

Fighting broke out in the Belaya Rechka area early on Thursday

and spread to several parts of the city.

A local Interior Ministry source told Itar-Tass that rebels

launched a "carefully planned" simultaneous attack on police

stations, Russia's federal security forces, military and drugs-

control offices as well as the airport.

He said a security operation was under way across the city to

track down and kill the militants. Shooting is now said to be

sporadic.

"There was heavy fighting everywhere. Attacks have been

repelled, there have been fatalities and wounded," the official

said, but adding that some of the attackers had been

destroyed and scattered.

A school was also reportedly caught up in the fighting, but a

teacher said all the pupils were evacuated. Parents searched

frantically for their children in the school yard as black smoke

billowed overhead.

The BBC's Emma Simpson in Moscow says this appears to have

been an all-out attack on Nalchik's law enforcement and

security services.

The pro-rebel Kavkaz Center website said it had received

information from rebel sources that a unit of Chechen armed

forces had entered Nalchik.

It said it was a detachment of the Kabardino-Balkaria jamaat,

called Yarmuk. The use of the word jamaat indicates that it is

made up of radical Islamic fighters.

I wonder why they didn't detect this earlier, a big group like that should have been spotted maybe.

Hope this goes better then Beslan and the insident in the theater, although I have doubt about that.

EDIT: Sorry, for got the source BBC News

[Ares1978 0]

Well me basically? Over here vagrants and hobo's are responsible for the majority of crime and its not like their doing themselves a lot of good. Besides having a group of them hanging out in front of your bussiness virtually mugging your customers when they leave for change doesn't really help bussiness. I doubt their family is that glad with them dying of overdoses on the streets. I am all for imprisonment with therapy and forced rehab.

So you want them locked up because some of them might commit crimes? Because they annoy you?

[Balschoiw 0]

They are the source of all evil

"Doctor hand me the brainlaser please"