Quote:
Originally Posted by West Ender
When someone takes away another person's most essential Human Right, the right to live, they should forfeit any rights themselves. Anyone who deliberately kills, injures or degrades another human being should be treated as a non-person and treated accordingley, in other words they should receive basic sustenance and shelter and nothing more.
Sutcliffe is yet another example of the way prisoners are better cared for than many of our oldest citizens. There are people who fought for this country in a world war who don't get free, heated accomodation, 3 free meals a day provided, free television and the free advice of lawyers (paid for by you and me) on how to get an even better deal.
|
The "non person" argument has been used before, as has labelling certain individuals and groups as sub-human. The KKK labelled blacks as sub humans and then proceded to lynch them ... the Aryan Nations still thinks this is cool. What surprises me, altho after all these years of seeing it I should be immune to the surprise, is how little it takes to turn normal, nice, law abiding people to turn into a howling lynch mob. That pensioners and veterans are poor is a totally different issue. It has nothing to do with civil rights and a lot to do with goverment allowing an obscenely inequitable distribution of the national wealth. Is it your argument that if prisoners were deprived of their civil rights and housed in uncivilised conditions, pensioners and veterans would all of a sudden be better off? I don't be bloody well thinking so.