PoliticsUK - 2001

Full Version: Press Cycle #37: Justice & Human Rights
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Following the rulings of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, has the correct balance been found between justice and human rights?

Closes 11:59pm 21/05/18

Remember to bold your tagline.
Our country is founded on the principles of liberty, freedom, human rights and justice. We politicians are in a constant fight over who is right and who is wrong, who is just and who is not. We politicians are profoudly unqualified to deliver justice, and only a tyrrancial country would allow its politicians to do so in place of the courts. Justice and human rights are two sides of the same coin.
I absolutely stand by the ruling issued by the Supreme Court ruling that politicians should not interfere with the Judiciary when it comes to sentencing. Our job is to set the law, their job is to interpret it and pass sentence. If the judiciary started to legislate then there would be outrage, we cannot allow the reverse to be true if we consider ourselves a just and democratic society.
I welcome the review of the facts by the Supreme Court and their analysis of the fair structure of powers as made available to a government in determining the measure of justice. We are a European country, and as such, I take our aspirations to meet with the standards of our European partners very seriously, particularly where the traditions of our system may still linger past their expiry date. We will assess the details of situations affected by this ruling on a case-by-case basis and will comply with the Court's decision. Where defendants believe that injustice remains, we will allow that to be origin point for discussion and resolution.
Sovereign countries have every right to prosecute criminals as the worst of society as they see fit to maintain the rule of law and order. This is an issue which fundementally effects the British people, and we as public officials need to speak on their behalf. Britain wants tougher measures against those with a vendetta against law and order, and we have not only the power but the duty to deliver on that. I hope that we can have a serious discussion on this matter, as I feel the public mandates us to.
I think it is absolutely right that we listen to our own Supreme Court when it comes to issues regarding the proper treatment of our criminals and when it comes to the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers. This is not a matter of the EU vs the UK or the elected vs the unelected it is about justice and human rights vs abuse of an antiquated system that has no right to exist any longer. I wholeheartedly support the decision by the Supreme Court to overturn this archaic practice of allowing politicians to meddle in the sentencing process.
Press Cycle closed
Issue profile: medium - 30 momentum points

Labour: 15

You got out there and sold a message more effectively, even if most people find your message a little hard to live with. So much for "tough on crime" is the line the tabloids take.

Lib Dems: 8
 
Your message is somewhat crowded out by the government having pretty much the same line.
 
Conservatives: 7
 
You only had one contribution from a backbencher - so you are lucky it is more populist than the Government's. If you don't want to lose out so strongly then you need to get a party line out there on big issues like this.
 
Influence Points:

Joye Lin: "Britain wants tougher measures against those with a vendetta against law and order, and we have not only the power but the duty to deliver on that." - The Sun cheers

Emily Kennedy: "We politicians are profoudly unqualified to deliver justice, and only a tyrrancial country would allow its politicians to do so in place of the courts. Justice and human rights are two sides of the same coin."

Rebecca Flair: "I wholeheartedly support the decision by the Supreme Court to overturn this archaic practice of allowing politicians to meddle in the sentencing process."