tregenza ([info]tregenza) wrote,
@ 2008-05-14 16:23:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Civil Rights Abuse Daily: Episode 23
Ripper in legal bid for freedom

But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said ...
"Top of my list of priorities, I have to say, is not Peter Sutcliffe's rights, it's the rights of those people who were his victims, ..."


First of all, I thought the point of human rights was that everyone had them equally, with no person's rights more or less important than another person.

Secondly, most of Sutcliffes' victims are dead and there is no evidence to suggest that those who are still alive (two I think) or the families of the deceased would have their right's threatened in anyway by Sutcliffe's release.

Thirdly, I would hope that the Home Secretary has, say, terrorism as their top priority and not the rights of some victims of a crime committed 20+ years ago.

(Post a new comment)


[info]hawkida
2008-05-14 03:43 pm UTC (link)
This is the same woman who said on the subject of increasing the time people can be imprisoned without charges, something along the lines of:

"It won't be hypothetical if and when it occurs".

In short, she's an idiot.

(Reply to this)

[info]maviscruet
2008-05-14 04:00 pm UTC (link)
In fairness for the third point when talking about something and listing priorities - it's ok to skip stuff that's not directly related to the subject your talking about.....

And equally - f*ck the nutter. If somebody can prove to me that's he's reformed and/or cured I might be willing to listen. But at the momment it's a legal challange on procedural grounds so I see no reason to let him out.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]tregenza
2008-05-15 09:45 am UTC (link)
The point of the legal challenge is to establish whether he is cured / reformed or whatever.

Currently he is being held under mental health laws that mean he can be held forever.

If he is not mentally ill, then he has the right to know when he will be released, even if its still a long way off. That date was set by a judge, in possession of all the facts, with out a political agenda demanding he looks tough on crime.

Neither politicians or the general public should have any role in deciding when people are released.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]maviscruet
2008-05-15 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Except that the judge set a tarrif of 30 years in a clear manner - and that's not elapsed - and they are challenging that tarrif on a purley procedural grounds.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…