Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey
That doesn't make sense Margaret, that country has severe drugs laws in place and yet it still happens on quite a scale. That to me is just as an inefficient law as what these other people are suggesting the Human Rights Act is.
The child's rights are being upheld by him being up for trial in the first place. Also the child is being given the facilities to not have to stand in court and give the evidence in front of him. I would say the child is quite adequately protected now.
|
Whether the laws of Laos make sense or not was not the issue....the issue is that this country has well defined and publicised laws on Drug trafficking..........if you can't do the time(or accept the sentence) then you should not do the crime.......again whether the law works, it must deter some people....and certainly when someone is caught, it sends out the message that this is not acceptable behaviour.
As for the child victim.......you may think that her Human Rights are being upheld, but if this man was to win his appeal and be given a lighter sentence and was let out.......perhaps at a time when you have children, would you feel that your children were safe from him?
Shouldn't parents expect that their children will be protected from men like him?
I think that Human Rights should only apply if you prove to have human qualities....this man appears to be inhuman.......caring only for his own pleasures and not caring who these pleasures may harm...permanently.....and while children are very resilient, how do we know that this child is not damaged beyond repair?