frank theriault wrote: > No sir!! With the greatest of respect,you are wrong. First > of all, in this case, no one admitted to anything. Secondly, > one's rights don't end when they confess. There are any > number of very good reasons that one may confess to a crime > they didn't commit. In fact, it's much more common than one > would think. One could be acting under duress. One could be > insane or otherwise not in their right mind. > One could be simply seeking attention or notoriety. A person > who confesses to a crime must have the same rights as anyone > else. If we take away that person's rights, then who's next?
A quick open comment on crime and punishment. The important point is that of justice; it's down to a jury to decide guilt and a judge to pass sentence. Things often later come to light, so I am relieved here in the UK, there is no capital punishment as you can't un-hang or un-electrocute someone. Whether the sentence once passed (and as an example we'll take one where no defence was offered) is accepted by the public is often more problematical. I can think of a recent case where one person has served their sentence, but been forced to assume a new identity on release. If the person has served his/her time, then he/she owes nothing more to society - we have extracted our pound of flesh. To demand more, extra judicially, suggests that the original sentence, whatever it may have been, was not enough; or that rehabilitation is impossible; or that something is wrong with society. I don't always agree with the above paragraph but felt it is worthy to add to the comments made. If someone does commit a hideous crime and serves a long sentence, then on release writes a best seller of his crime and becomes wealthy, where do the human rights issues stand? With the victim (or descendents thereof) or the time served criminal in expressing freedom of speech? It's all a can of worms. Malcolm
