Thursday, July 18, 2013

Another statement of the concept of due process

Another statement of the concept of due process guaranteed by the US Constitution's  Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates into English law Article 2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which defines the right to life as follows:

    "1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
    2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
        (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
        (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
        (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

The reason that "get away with murder" laws violate due process is that they sanction the extra-judicial taking of life, which contradicts 800 years of legal history.

BTW,  In Evans v United Kingdom, the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo.

13 comments:

  1. On the human embryo, that's his opinion and there will always be disagreements on that subject.

    But the quotations of the human rights act looks like it is the basis for stand your ground to me. At least that's one way to interpret it.

    "2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;" Looks like it fits the bill perfectly in most self defense situations, including the Martin/Zimmerman trial.

    So I don't see any conflict here, in 800 years or 8000 or even 80,000 years of life protecting itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, you're for capital punishment, right?

      Delete
    2. Texas Colt carryJuly 23, 2013 at 7:46 PM

      Yes I am. With undeniable proof IE: witnesses, video, DNA and so on, absolutely on board for capital punishment. He forfeits life when the criminal forfeits another life by his own hands.

      Delete
  2. "The Human Rights Act applies to all public bodies within the United Kingdom, including central government, local authorities, and bodies exercising public functions. However, it does not include Parliament when it is acting in its legislative capacities."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

    Laci, I get the impression that this act is intended to control government bodies. How would that apply to individual self defense? It seems to be more applicable to government bodies such as law enforcement and military in using force against citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Laci, yes or no: Is lethal force ever required to defend a person from unlawful violence?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The point of the stand your ground laws was to prevent people who engaged in self defense from being wrongfully convicted of murder or manslaughter. They were passed in reaction against cases where prosecutors were pushing juries to second guess whether there was some avenue of retreat that might have worked when evaluating situations with the benefits of hindsight rather than asking if the person reasonably feared for their life, which is the traditional legal standard.

    Maybe this reaction went too far--I'm open to hearing actual suggestions for better solutions to that problem. On the other hand, constantly calling them "get away with murder laws" and claiming that they were passed to sanction vigilantism is dishonest, idiotic, and getting old and tired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not what the point is. It's about an adolescent, school-yard concept of not backing down. Previously the self-defense laws required a person to retreat if possible in order to avoid shooting someone. But, that was too unpalatable to the macho assholes behind the SYG movement. Backing down is not manly, especially when you're in the right. It's a pride-driven distortion of what's right and it completely loses sight of the fact that the lives of bad guys, being human lives, are valuable too.

      Delete
    2. See your new thread on these comments for my answer.

      Delete
  5. By the way, Laci, what does a ruling in the United Kingdom have to do with U.S. law?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why, according to Laci, we're still under UK law as our little insurrection was completely immoral and unjustifiable. Please remit your back taxes for your entire lifetime.

      Delete
  6. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
    (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

    Seems like this covers Stand Your Ground laws and the Zimmerman case.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When Laci refers to "get away with murder" laws, I can only assume that he is referring to "stand your ground" laws. As it turns out, stand your ground laws only provide a defense when a person acted "in defence of any person from unlawful violence".

    I see no conflict. What am I missing?

    - TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you're missing, I presume on purpose, is that if retreating safely is an option, you can stand there and fire away. That's why in some cases it's murder.

      Delete