it depends on how you look at it... would you want the person who killed the person to pay for what they did or let them live in jail where all you do is sit and be lazy for the rest of their life
The death penalty for murder was abolished under the 1965 Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty Act). The death penalty for treason and a variety of other offences was abolished under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. For the absolute avoidance of doubt the death penalty in the UK was absolutely abolished for all offences when the UK became a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights by enacting the 1998 Human Rights Act.
In the broadest sense, it is a human rights violation not to treat a human being like a human being. Racism is the intentional relegation of an ethnic community to a sub-human state, and thus is not, eo ipso, a "violation" of human rights, but it *is* indicative of an attitude which would *want* to violate human rights.
anti- death penalty i am a anti death penalty... because death penalty is not a human punishment..
Most certainly. Murder is the killing of a human being by a human being. I am excluding war in this answer. Premeditated murder is one that is planned beforehand with the sole purpose of ending another's life.Murder is indeed a violation of human naturalrights, as said by John Locke, "Life (of which murder is violating by taking away that life), liberty, and land."Murder is also a violation of human legal rights, as murder is against the law and is almost always condemned to very high sentences such as 25-life or in extreme cases the death penalty.
The cutting into a child for any reason other than medical emergency is a violation of human rights, assault, and child abuse.
Yes No, it should not. An eye for an eye. You deserve the same fate you gave your victim. Of course there should be major, flawless laws for the death penalty, and of course understandable reasons for being put under the death penalty. For example, if you steal a car, the death penalty is just too harsh of a punishment. But if you murder someone, then the death penalty is an excellent form of punishment; again, an eye for an eye.
The terms "human rights abuse" and "human rights violation" are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle distinction. A human rights violation refers to the actual act of infringing on a person's fundamental rights as recognized by international law. On the other hand, a human rights abuse encompasses a broader range of actions, including systemic discrimination, neglect, or mistreatment that may not always fit the legal definition of a violation but still undermines human dignity and equality. In essence, while a violation is a clear breach of established rights, abuse can encompass a wider spectrum of harmful actions or practices.
When a Government imposes restriction on the free movement,freedom of expression of its citizens, these will definitely be considered as human rights violation by the Government.
International Human Rights Law (see International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). Also, International Humanitarian Law (see Geneva Convention IV) governs certain aspects of imposing the death penalty in occupied territories.
Violation of human rights
The violation of human rights
All of the above -Internvention to prevent US government official from committing a human rights violation - refusal to follow a clearly illegal order to commit a human rights violation - intervention (through moral dissuasion and non-violent means) to prevent a member of the partner nation military from committing a human rights violation