escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows below for full page descriptions

Human Rights... and Responsibilities

The idea that all people should be equal before the law and have an entitlement to equal opportunties and treatment in society is one which is basically sound, and one with which we have no argument. The problems have arisen with its inconsistent and sometimes over-zealous application both here and overseas, and the fact that these rights have been emphasised with no emphasis on the accompanying responsibilities. This, along with a poor sense of priorities displayed by this and previous governments at times in the implementation of these rights has led to a situation where questions need to be asked.

Amongst the most basic of human rights are surely those of law abiding citizens to go about their lawful business without fear of attack, and to be able to enjoy their homes and possessions without interference, as in the following Articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

or....

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

or....

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Whenever a government permits law abiding citizens to be assaulted, threatened, or their property unlawfully taken or destroyed, they are permitting these rights to be infringed. If this government wishes to make a great show of leading the world in adherence to human rights, then it would be nice if they could make more strenuous efforts to solve these problems. Certainly, we realise that no government can completely eliminate these problems, but they can certainly be better controlled than at present as can be seen by looking at Japan or the improvements in the situation in New York.

Surely the human rights of law abiding citizens, regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political (or other) views, nationality, etc to the unimpeded use of their homes and possessions should be a priority of this or any government over the rights of career criminals?

In a society where crime has been permitted to become an ongoing and serious problem, as in most Western nations today, the rights of law abiding citizens have inexorably been limited, in some cases to appalling levels. When people such as the elderly or single women are afraid to go out at night, or to certain places, at any time, as the have justifiable fears of assault and/or rape,their right to freedom of movement is effectively being infringed - in breach of Article 13 (1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Consider some extreme overseas examples, the situations in South Africa or Columbia at present. Many law abiding citizens, black as well as white, are effectively under lock and key, detained not (directly) by the government, but by the extreme levels of violent crime there, a situation the government there has allowed to continue unabated and grow. Johannesburg is now considered to be the most dangerous place in the world outside a war zone, and Bogota is not much better. Unimpeded freedom of movement there is an illusion, unless one wishes to lead a very exciting life, one that is unlikely to end in a ripe old age...

We are, thankfully, far better off here, but even here people's quite justifiable fears in some locations keep them effectively locked up in their own homes, or restrict the times they go out and the places they go. And a right which one cannot safely make use of, is a right eroded. If one doubts this situation could possibly exist here, think back to the deplorable case of the Lawton family of Invercargill a couple of years back. We defy anyone to say that their freedoms and rights were not infringed, and grossly so at that.

Unfortunately the most zealous application of human rights in this country have not been on behalf of law abiding citizens, but on behalf of those who are not (anyone recall the Mangaroa prison incident?). The sad outcome of all this is that there are many in this country who now have quite a negative reaction to the very phrase "human rights". This is a worrying development, not helped in the slightest by the efforts of certain lawyers to protect to the nth degree the human rights of convicted paedophiles and gang members. Such efforts have hardly improved the public perception of the concept of human rights.

That an increasing number of people are becoming dismissive or downright cynical of the important principle of human rights is understandable when one considers some of the loathsome creatures that some people have seen fit to defend, not only upon their first or second offences, (as they should be) but after their fiftieth or sixtieth convictions. Furthermore, the same people have made strenuous efforts to protect these offenders even once they have been convicted yet again, and are in prison. By zealously applying human rights in such situations, their importance and significance in the eyes of many of the rest of us has been seriously devalued.

What we would propose is that some limits be set upon the application of human rights to all and sundry, particularly in the legal arena. It is true that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights does state that;

Article 11.
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

....but we would pose this question;
Is UNLIMITED legal aid and representation a human right?

The emphasis is on the word unlimited for good reason. Legal aid, like most things provided by the government, costs money. It is paid for by the taxpayer, i.e. you and me. There is not an unlimited supply of money in the real world.

Therefore, there are limits on how much health care we provide, as the family of Rau Williams could no doubt testify. Otherwise there would be no waiting lists, and no meningitis in poor communities either. There are limits on education, otherwise we could all afford to go to university, and the would be little or no illiteracy. This is true for other government supplied services, such as health, education, housing, welfare, and many more.

There is a human right to legal representation. Yet there are also human rights to adequate housing, medical care, education and so on. They are mentioned, right there in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Article 25.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

There is also a specific human right to free education, as in;

Article 26. (1)
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

However, there are limitations in just how much of all these things we can provide, as explained above. If we must put limitations on all these other things - things that we provide to people innocent of any wrongdoing, such as children - then surely there should be SOME limits set on the legal aid and representation we provide?

Surely an ailing child, a family living in substandard housing, or a student struggling to pay for the higher education (that one day may allow them to discover things that benefit all humanity) are all more worthy recipients of taxpayer largesse than the lawyer of a serious violent offender or paedophile with a long string of previous convictions (and/or one who is patently downright guilty).

We recognise that in doing so we would compromise one of the Articles of the Declaration of Human Rights. But... as it stands, this nation is already compromising some of the others to some extent. We do not condemn them for this, realistically, limited resources dictate that it must be so, and we all recognise this. All we ask is that the same limitations be imposed upon the rights to legal representation, etc as are imposed upon some of the others, and that the rights of law abiding citizens, particularly those struggling with poverty, be placed ahead of criminals.

Those who have chosen a criminal career have abdicated their responsibilities to their community and to their fellow citizens. They have shown an ongoing and flagrant disregard for the rights of others. It needs to be asked why then are their own rights so zealously defended by some in our society, often at the expense of the victims of these individuals. Surely if someone has abdicated from their responsibilities to society and all those within it to the point where they have 50-60 or more convictions for violent offences, then we feel they must also forfeit some of the rights they have within that society.

This article is by Peter Jenkins (the webmaster here). If you wish to use it in your own work, go right ahead, help yourself. Some acknowledgement of the source i.e. Sensible Sentencing Trust would be appreciated.