Fixing the line

[Walsingham]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...acy-rights.html

 

Prisoners on the run are not named, because it would breach their right to privacy.

 

Seriously.

 

Now, I acept that legal obligations are legal obligations, but I think the point is that the legal obligations are clearly wrong. It is not the case that all rights are always present. We need far smarter and far more open debate on what we are going to accept and what we will give up.

[Gorth]

That *is* silly. I can understand that the legal system goes out of its way to protect the privacy of a person until found guilty, but afterwards?

 

Should criminal records in general be publicly available? It might put a few journalists out of their job, but still.

[Rosbjerg]

I don't really know if I agree - on one side I do, since it would make it easier for the police to catch them.. but on the other side I find it wrong to take someone's rights away, simply because you've already taken some..

 

Should criminal records in general be publicly available? It might put a few journalists out of their job, but still.

 

I wouldn't want that, because I don't need to know if any of my friends or family did something stupid in their past.. When they've served their time in prison/mental institution/with community service (or were acquitted) the crime is no longer revelant unless it has a specific bearing on a job (child molesters etc), no need to further punish them by making sure society will forever shun them.

[Aristes]

This is ridiculous on its face. When a prisoner escapes confinement, they are in the process of committing another crime. It's absolutely and morally wrong that their privacy should come under any consideration whatsoever. Furthermore, criminals who have demonstrated violent tendencies are a danger to the public and the means of identifying them should be made available immediately.

 

I'm not out to win a debating contest and I don't give a crap about clever hypotheticals or petty exchanges meant to showcase someone's 'intelligence.' As a matter of practical policy, this issue is a massive failure on the part of the public officials. Yes, an honest debate regarding privacy is perfectly legitimate, but the line should be drawn waaaaaaaay the hell back. For example, Ros' comment about criminals who have served their terms and are therefore free should have some right to privacy sounds perfectly reasonable. Criminals who are incarcerated for committing a crime and escape confinement, and are therefore in the process of committing an additional crime, have no right to privacy.

[Walsingham]

Well, yeah. I was expecting the debate to raise good points on both sides. the problem as I understand it is that human rights legislation currently draws no distinction between circumstance. So, for example recent ruling effectively mean that soldiers have the same rights on the battlefield as off it. Which I, and a huge number of others consider totally unworkable. I'm not saying soldiers shouldn't be treated decently. But they are required to do things that would be totally unreasonable of a civilian. It seems that the same underlying issue is present here. A prisoner cannot abrogate their right to privacy. yet how could one run a prison in the first place without that right being surrendered?

 

I would not be averse to the legislation being cleared up, but I think a more sensible option would be a return to intent based legislation. I've mentioned this before, and refer to comments made in the House of Lords that legislation used to state the reason for which it had been written. To protect the weak or what have you. A judge could refer to that intent in his or her ruling. But this practice has declined, for what reason I do not know.