The human rights act is often a topic of controversy and debate. Although, the initial purpose of the human rights act was that it would become an unshakable foundation stone of the constitution. However, it didn't work out that way in one such case. In the story of Verna Bryant, whose daughter was murdered by a man wrongly paroled by botched paperwork. It was definitely considered a horrible crime. The Sun falsely informed her that the release was the fault of the Human Rights Act which angered her and caused her to tear up the legislation. Good news came of this because just yesterday a new bill or rights was passed and it was agreed to be a formal commitment "not to resile" from any Human Rights Act protections or restrictions. More or less, this bill has its pros and cons but ultimately, the best that can conceivably be said of the mooted new rights is that they might change the terms in which rights are discussed, and so challenge suggestions they are only of use to migrants and criminals.
I think that the human rights act, have very good intentions as far as the equalities of rights are concerned, but sometimes I do believe that do to the many legal complications that they can cause can sometimes have a negative effect on our justice system. Let's face facts, even the most fair and hard thought out rules,laws,acts,etc are always going to have a negative affect in some type of way. But it's important that these cons don't cause tremendous consequences especially as far as the law is concerned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/24/human-rights-act-jack-straw?INTCMP=SRCH
1 comment:
I feel bad for the women and that man should not have been released ever if he did commit a murder. I agree that the bill does have pros and cons.
Post a Comment