Human Rights

[Gary_M]

I often wonder why cases involving Human Rights usually focus on the alleged 'criminal'. If someone has committed a crime then in almost 100% of the situations it has had an effect on one or more 'innocent' people. So, what about THEIR Human Rights? The right to be safe from crime, the right to be protected, etc .........

I am all for promoting 'inclusion' in our society, but I do know that there are some circumstances where the inclusion of a person/persons is placing the human rights of other people at high risk.

I am sure most of you will be aware of recent cases where the person committing the crime has been compensated, released from custody, etc because it is felt their human rights have been breeched. If this is the case, could it not be argued that 'locking someone up' in the first place and denying them of their freedom is a breech of Human Rights?

I think the UK's swing towards 'political correctness' is NOT working (because of the methods used in its implementation) and already we are experiencing the problems associated with this 'path'. People need boundaries (it is a 'natural' need in terms of our development, and if we do not have them we feel insecure and are constantly seeking to find them). More and more boundaries are being taken away from us (through Laws, Acts or Guidelines) and already the results of this, in terms of individual's insecurities, is very evident. 'Technically speaking' I can no longer make statements based on 'age', but I think it is ok to use as an example ................ it is FACT that many younger people now have much less respect for themself or others. I would argue that this is a direct result of many of their 'boundaries' being removed - parents can't smack children, certain age groups can commit serious crimes with little or no consequences, teachers cannot say or do certain things with children, young children cannot be 'consoled by a hug' when very upset at school, etc, etc, etc. While I can understand the reasoning behind some of these, what in effect it IS doing is confusing a person. They are naturally seeking some form of security/boundary, but it isn't there, so in the nature of behaviour, the person has to seek further and further to find this. Basically, they are continously 'testing limits' to find security.

Come on Government - look at the evidence, study human behaviours, etc Political correctness in theory IS a good thing, and inclusion is definitely a good thing, but make sure you know the CORRECT way to achieve this. Removing people's need to find security is NOT the correct way.

Of course, a cynical person might say that the Government know this, because one of the most effective ways to control a person is to make them insecure

Ok, rant over

 

[WoodYouLike]

Gary_M, I don’t call this a rant.

I call this: thoughtful thoughts of a thoughtful guy who’s concerned and who cares about the community (local and national) and wants to make it a better place for everyone concerned.

I applaud your ‘rant’ and total agree with it.

 

[nelsy]

I also agree Gary a sound account of the sad state we have reached in this country. Cherie Blair and Human Rights has had a negative effect on many of our boundaries. The essence may be positive, but human nature, as it is, is open to abuse - and these laws are often playing into the hands of the wrong people.

A simple analogy is use of computer programs - carefully thought through to get the best results - but the human element (adding data) often causes problems and distorts the expected results - if you see what I mean...............

 

[Gary_M]

A simple analogy is use of computer programs - carefully thought through to get the best results - but the human element (adding data) often causes problems and distorts the expected results - if you see what I mean...............

Yep, makes sense. A human brain is basically a very complex computer - we put in the data via our sensory neurons, it calculates the data based on prior learning and churns out a result. We put in the 'wrong' or unknown data and who knows what the results may be

 

[Steve]

Human brain is not like a computer. Computers are based on logic. Programmed right, they will always get the right result. The human brain is the least logical machine I can think of, mainly because of the involvement of emotions and feelings, which distort our sense of logic.

 

[Big_Spark]

I agree Gary, although I think we have to be careful.

Yes if a person breaks the law they abdicate certain rights, especially that of freedom if the crime is serious enough, however I do feel that as a society we need to be careful about which rights we remove and why..as it could be a slippery slope for all of us otherwise.

I agree that a prisoner should be treated with compassion, humility, humanity and certainly have medical treatment accessible to them..however I do believe that in the recent case we have seen, the prisoners had no right to sue. They broke the law, they got sentenced to a term of incarceration, medical help was available to them, perhaps not to the degree they would like, but certainly equal to any standard prisoner, so they had no legal or moral right to compensation as far as I am concerned.

 

[eggplant]

I also agree, too many do-gooders, human rights this that and the other.

I think the UK's swing towards 'political correctness' is NOT working

I think its actually backfired and quite badly.

 

[Gary_M]

Human brain is not like a computer. Computers are based on logic. Programmed right, they will always get the right result. The human brain is the least logical machine I can think of, mainly because of the involvement of emotions and feelings, which distort our sense of logic.

I suppose it depends on a person's beliefs. I believe that the cortex is a logical or 'rational thinking' part of the brain - therefore I would liken it to a computer, because it is dealing with the data that has been entered into it from our years of experiences and learning. However, I have not yet made my mind up about the thinking processes that occur in the amygdala (the part of the brain that 'takes over' during states of high emotions and is usually not capable of rational thinking - e.g. When a person says something they didn't really mean in the heat of an arguement). What I haven't decided yet is: are our emotions learned. If they are, then I would still believe that our brains are just 'computing data' that has been inputed, in the same way that a computer analyses a set of numbers and calculates an outcome. Humans did not give the computer the solution, but the ability to find it. If we confuse the data that we input by involving pre-learned emotions then there would be an effect the outcome, so it is not really different from a computer program that has a 'virus' effecting its processing.

However, if emotions are not learned then I agree that our brain is not like a computer. To complicate matters, there is proof that some behaviours and emotions can be 'transferred' genetically, therefore finding evidence to substantiate either possibility is very difficult

If we look at one emotion - anger, then we see that people display it in different ways (their behaviour). It shows that emotions and behaviours are directly linked. My beliefs have always been based on behaviourism. So, if our behaviours are learned, does that mean that our emotions are learned too? I don't know. Emotions are influenced by different parts of our bodies: i.e. muscles, organs, hormones, etc. So, at the moment it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' situation - do our emotions or behaviours 'provoke' actions to occur in these parts of the body (which will then influence how the brain processes information), or do the reactions in parts of our bodies create the emotions?

Emotions have, and will for a long time, be a bit of a mystery in terms of psychology and physiology. Some conditions prevent a person from displaying or understanding emotion. I would think that these people may be the ones to finally give the key to the long-standing question - 'what are emotions?'