I have just read that the Yorkshire Ripper is appealing for freedom on the grounds that his human rights have been breached but frankly, should he even be allowed to have human rights? Let alone critcise them!
I mean what about the human rights of the 13 women he killed, and the many more who were at risk? He certainly did not consider theirs so why on earth should his be considered now?
Too often it seems that the law does not differenciate between right and wrong but between who can give the best argument due to ludicrous loopholes.
His lawyer Saimo Chahal, was named Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year 2006 for “repeatedly pushing the boundaries of the law on behalf of those with mental illness”. But this one woman’s crusade against breaching the law should not put the rest of us at risk. How would she feel if he did it again?
He has been responsible for countless physical and mental torment and should not be allowed to walk the streets again.
In a campaigning blog for human rights, former United Nations Secretary General, and Elder, Kofi A. Annan, said every state had to protect its people by respecting fundamental human rights. But what happens when one’s human rights put another’s at risk?
I’m all for human rights but they should have to be of a decent human standard to warrant it.
