Those pesky human rights again

[andyf]

From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5127388.stm):

Many politicians, though, are likely to see Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling as further evidence that the European Convention is the real problem in ensuring the security of the UK.

oooh damn those pesky human rights, getting in the way of teh security again! Quash them all, that's what I say :spinface:

[Afty]

Yeah. the ECHR is definitely the reason that people want to explode bombs in the UK. Definitely.

[andyf]

So if I'm reading it right, are politicians effectively saying they need to be able to violate personal liberties to make the country safe? Why is this, why can't they do with the power they have already? I don't see people being tagged and monitored through cities and countryside during the IRA's active phase.

[Chicane]

they didnt have the technology back then...

[TheDon]

So if I'm reading it right, are politicians effectively saying they need to be able to violate personal liberties to make the country safe?

Because sending someone to jail isn't violating personal liberties? Pretty much everything that is done to keep a country safe also violates someones personal liberties in some way.

I'm not really a fan of the ECHR, there has to be a point where comman sense comes in and the safety of many is put before the rights of an individual.
AFAIK these orders were only put on people that they were 100% sure posed an immediate risk, but didn't have sufficient evidence to get a conviction through the courts (usually because evidence was got by methods inadmissable in court, such as bugging, or it would compromise the security of a source). I see no problem with the orders being issued like that, they still have to be reviewed by a closed court and sanctioned by a judge. It's not like they've just picked random people to detain, these are people that would have got a conviction through a court IF the evidence against them was admissable.

[Afty]

AFAIK these orders were only put on people that they were 100% sure posed an immediate risk, but didn't have sufficient evidence to get a conviction through the courts (usually because evidence was got by methods inadmissable in court). I see no problem with the orders being issued like that
What?

SO suddenly it's OK to detain people if the police are "sure" they pose a risk, despite the fact that they don't have enough evidence to obtain a conviction?

Our courts exist for a REASON. What happens when they come for you, because you pose a risk to someone? Would you still support the detention without public trial when it's YOU they are coming after?
Or are you OK because you have "nothing to hide"?

[TheDon]

Theres a difference between not having enough evidence, and not having enough admissable evidence.

For example, someone put a window through on my house, we have them clear as day on cctv, 100% proof, no doubt it was who it was. It couldn't go to court because video is not admissable as evidence, only stills are. They took a still from the video which was distorted and suddenly the 100% certainty disappeared.
Now we know who it was, the police know who it was, but you can't prove it in a court because there is no evidence that they accept to prove it. Does this mean that we're wrong and it wasn't who it was? Of course not, the evidence is there, it's just that the courts can't accept it.

Now in this case they could have hours of telephone calls of these people plotting a major attack, they could have times and dates of targets, how they are going to do it, whos going to do it, and know every little detail about their plan. Now, what should they do? Wait till the day and then catch them redhanded? Or detail them straight away to minimise the risks? If they choose the second then dispite them having a mountain of phone calls providing undeniable evidence that these people are a risk they have NO evidence that is admissable in court. So maybe they should just wait to the day and pray there isn't a last minute change of plan or nothing goes wrong?

If there is surveillance that proves 110% beyond all doubt that these people are a risk and the only reason they haven't taken it to courts is because doing so is a risk to future operations or the evidence they have is inadmissible then I'm fine with it. It's not like they can just randomly pick people, there are guidelines and rules which must be followed and each case is still individually approved by a judge.

It depends on the level of risk, if I was plotting to blow up a public place I'd be ok with them detaining me like they are these people. After all, at least they can actually go out 10am till 4pm, they can still see the outside world, and have contact with people. If it went through the courts they'd be sitting in a cell for the rest of their lives. If it was just because I wanted to give some guy a smack then clearly not as it'd be a very harsh penalty for conspiracy to GBH :p

Then again, I'm not really a fan of trial by jury anyway. In an attempt to get a fair trial you make the most corruptable and emotionally biased people decide the outcome?

[Stan]

Prob being v.stupid here but instead of arguing over human rights and what not why don't they review what can count as admissable evidence? Why is a video of someone commiting a crime not allowed, but a still is? You can doctor both at the end of the day! imo it would be easier to change what is admissable than changing the HR law n'est pas?

[Afty]

there are guidelines and rules which must be followedYeah, those rules used to be the right to a trial by jury, and that you could not be punished unless the prosecution proved your guilt beyond reasonable doubt by presenting sufficient evidence.

Apparently you don't mind what the rules are as long as they are followed? What happens when they choose an activity you like/support (like voting for a party other than the one in power) and make that illegal, punishable by death and trial by secret police & secret court. Will you be OK with it then as they cart you away so long as they are "following the rules"?

Then again, I'm not really a fan of trial by jury anyway. In an attempt to get a fair trial you make the most corruptable and emotionally biased people decide the outcome?Wow, have you studied any history?

A jury of your peers is the only way to ensure a fair trial (and even then, in some cases it cannot work). Or perhaps we should have government branches controlling investigation, arrest, prosecution and judgment?

[TheDon]

Prob being v.stupid here but instead of arguing over human rights and what not why don't they review what can count as admissable evidence? Why is a video of someone commiting a crime not allowed, but a still is? You can doctor both at the end of the day! imo it would be easier to change what is admissable than changing the HR law n'est pas?

They've tried to make both video evidence and phone taps admissable in the past, but the security services are against phone taps being used in court cases as they think it'll somehow expose the methods they use or some crap. With videos they had some other stupid excuse like not every courtroom has a tv.

Yeah, those rules used to be the right to a trial by jury, and that you could not be punished unless the prosecution proved your guilt beyond reasonable doubt by presenting sufficient evidence.

Apparently you don't mind what the rules are as long as they are followed? What happens when they choose an activity you like/support (like voting for a party other than the one in power) and make that illegal, punishable by death and trial by secret police & secret court. Will you be OK with it then as they cart you away so long as they are "following the rules"?

So you think that people should get off just because there's no way to try them by jury because of a lack of admissable evidence? Even though you know without ANY doubt that they are guilty, they should just walk free? We're not talking about cases with no evidence, we're talking about cases with a stack of evidence that proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty, it's just that the form of evidence is not accepted by courts.

I care alot about what the rules are. But I'm not so naive enough to think that one set of rules can cover every situation. In something like this, where people pose a risk to the lives of the public, then they have to be delt with. If they can't be dealt with through the courts then another system has to be bought in that can deal with them. As long as that system is properly regulated and follows procedures to make sure that it is fair and that the people that are held by it are actually guilty beyond all doubt then I have no problem with it. What's the alternative? Waiting until it's too late? What would the public outcry be like if they had of blew up a public place and the security services had taped phone calls of them plotting it?

How you can even compare laws put in place to protect the people of this country against terrorism from KNOWN terrorists to voting for the oposition is beyond me. One is protecting the people, the other is a blatant abuse of power edging onto a dictatorship. I doubt anyone would support that. Taking a massive leap from terror laws to that is just nothing short of scaremongering. "oh noes, if we agree to changing one law then they'll change them all and we'll all be doomed!!!!11111". The rules I were on about are in place to protect innocent people from being detained by these orders, I wasn't refering to it as a case of "well it's the law so we have to follow it".

Wow, have you studied any history?

A jury of your peers is the only way to ensure a fair trial (and even then, in some cases it cannot work). Or perhaps we should have government branches controlling investigation, arrest, prosecution and judgment?
Yes, I have. I also know that our peers are easily corrupted, and are way too open to emotional responses over logical ones.

If you stick a mother in the jury for a suspected paedophile they will go in there looking for the worst to "protect the children". If you stick a paedophile in the jury for a suspected paedophile they will go in there looking to find them innocent because they are "one of their own". You can never gaurente an unbiased jury.

If trial by peers is such a good system then how come lynch mobs and vigilanties are so bad? Oh, wait, that's because they are evoking an emotional response to a situation and not a logical and correct one. That is the fundamental problem in any jury system. And it's one that lawyers know and pray on. You'll see lawyers everywhere making the most emotionally involved closing speeches they can, because they know that the one thing that people are open to is emotion. If you can turn someone emotionally against someone then it doesn't matter about the facts, logic goes out of the window.

Not that there's many (if any) better systems, the closest IMO would be independant legal experts that are properly vetted. But no legal system will ever be 100% fair and unbiased, as no human alive is.

[Demonic]

If you stick a mother in the jury for a suspected paedophile they will go in there looking for the worst to "protect the children". If you stick a paedophile in the jury for a suspected paedophile they will go in there looking to find them innocent because they are "one of their own". You can never gaurente an unbiased jury.

If trial by peers is such a good system then how come lynch mobs and vigilanties are so bad? Oh, wait, that's because they are evoking an emotional response to a situation and not a logical and correct one. That is the fundamental problem in any jury system. And it's one that lawyers know and pray on. You'll see lawyers everywhere making the most emotionally involved closing speeches they can, because they know that the one thing that people are open to is emotion. If you can turn someone emotionally against someone then it doesn't matter about the facts, logic goes out of the window.


There are two VERY simple things that make your examples totally irrelevant.

1. Juries are randomly selected from the electoral role, and its now quite difficult to get out of Jury duty (compared to the past). Combined with the fact that if you have anything to do with anyone involved in the case, the defendent, the judge etc, you'll go back to the pool and won't even hear any evidence for that case, you get a reasonably unbiased as a group selection of society.

2. It is a group of 12 for a reason. And you have to have a majority of at least 10:2 to get a verdict of guilty. This is so any individual bias should be cancelled out by the group.

And after all, only a very small minority of cases are actually dealt with by a Jury anyway.

[Swyft]

So you think that people should get off just because there's no way to try them by jury because of a lack of admissable evidence? Even though you know without ANY doubt that they are guilty, they should just walk free? We're not talking about cases with no evidence, we're talking about cases with a stack of evidence that proves beyond all doubt that they are guilty, it's just that the form of evidence is not accepted by courts.



All that evidence that can't be used by the court eh....

[TheDon]

There are two VERY simple things that make your examples totally irrelevant.

1. Juries are randomly selected from the electoral role, and its now quite difficult to get out of Jury duty (compared to the past). Combined with the fact that if you have anything to do with anyone involved in the case, the defendent, the judge etc, you'll go back to the pool and won't even hear any evidence for that case, you get a reasonably unbiased as a group selection of society.

2. It is a group of 12 for a reason. And you have to have a majority of at least 10:2 to get a verdict of guilty. This is so any individual bias should be cancelled out by the group.

And after all, only a very small minority of cases are actually dealt with by a Jury anyway.Random selection does nothing to make what I'm saying irrelevant. You're saying it's impossible to randomly select a paeodpile out of the entire population of the UK? Random selection means it CAN happen. They wont get sent home because they wont exactly declare it will they? Same with mothers, statistically 6 of the jury will be female, how many of them will be mothers? 50% maybe? so that's 3 people who may be inherently biased. 1/4 of the jury is already against the defendant solely based on what they are accused of.

And yeah a 10:2 majority mean that if one person goes with not guilty because of a bias (that there is no way to detect) it means that only 1 other person has to be not be convinced of their guilt and you have a guilty person walking free. Plus there is no gaurente that it will go to a majority decision, it is up the the judge if they will accept anything other than unanimous.

I'd hardly call that irrelevant...

Jury bias isn't a myth, it's nothing new, it's a widely accepted fact within the legal system, and one that all good lawyers prey on. There have even been studies showing that juries are inherently bias against huge corporations (everyone loves the little guy fighting the machine), bias towards doctors in malpractice suits (doctors never make mistakes, people that say they do are looking for easy money) and are even bias against poor people when it comes to things like theft (they clearly couldn't afford it so stole it). You can claim it's not there all you like but everyone who steps into the jury box has preconcieved ideas and stereotypes about society, and they don't just go away because they place their hand on a book and read from a card.

[Afty]

How you can even compare laws put in place to protect the people of this country against terrorism from KNOWN terrorists to voting for the oposition is beyond me. You really need to go study some history.

This decade it's terrorism.
A couple of decades ago it was radical environmentalists.
A couple of decades before that, Communists.
Before that, Nazis.

The list goes on - there is always a group of people that we are supposed to be cracking down on - do you know why? Basic Psychology - to evoke the most favourable response from someone you "include" them in your group and the easiest way to do that is to have them believe they are "excluding" other people from the group. It goes right back to tribal instincts when we hunted with spears and sharp stones... and it works.

If the evidence is not admissable in court then it is not evidence. Honestly, this sort of thing sickens me - removing the right to an open and public trial by a jury of your peers is wrong - it's enough to make ME reconsider my stance regarding our government, and how right/wrong it is to make an armed response. And *THIS* - alienating people - is what creates and fuels terrorism.

[Stan]

And *THIS* - alienating people - is what creates and fuels terrorism.

Would have to agree with that statement. No better example than the Palestinians who have had a raw deal. They are seen as terrorists because they use suicide bombers and target innocent civilians - end of story. However, when you look at the stats more closely which side do you think have had the most civilian casualties? Also, if they had military support from the US and used gunships and tanks like Israel would that make it ok? Funny how this situation has turned out - Palestinians target civilians and the response from Israel is a 'strike' of some sort. However, they target a Israeli soldier (a more acceptable target in a conflict compared to a civilian) and the whole bloody army is on their doorstep and they are accuse of being terrorists even more! I thought the whole point about 'terror' is that it targets civilians!!!

Sorry for slightly going off topic but it does illustrate what happens when a people get trampled on. And before the flaming starts I don't agree with suicide bombers or violence in any way. End of rant!

[Mu5icMan]

To solve this problem we should hire Judge Dred