Detention without charge? Are you mad!?

Have you herd about this idea of holding people without charge for up to two months? What do you think of it? Surely it's a good idea if helps to get criminals, terrorists or other dangerous people off our streets, or is it?

The last I herd is Great Britain is a free country. We are all free to do as we please as long as we keep our behaviour within the law. One of the fundamental aspects of freedom is the principal of Innocent until proven guilty. If you accuse me of breaking the law it is up to you to prove it. It is my prerogative to protest my innocence, but before I can be considered guilty a judge and jury must be convinced of my guilt. Then and only then can I be sentenced to a term in jail, (or in other countries possibly execution). We hear with increasing regularity of people being released early for prison after new evidence prooves they are not guilty. Such as parents jailed for murdering their children, just for it to come out later to have been cot death. They are only the few examples of miscarriages of justice that get reported by the media, they show that the policy of innocent until proven guilty is the only way to go, because it is to easy to get it wrong in the first place. If people can be held for decades, or even executed for crimes they are not guilty of, then is it not possible, or perhaps even likely, that many more Innocent people will end up in prison for two months at a time while the real criminal is walking free maybe even plotting future crimes if this legislation is allowed to go through.

So i ask my question again, surely it's a good idea if helps to get dangerous people off our streets, or is it? If you answer is still yes then i have to ask; If it was you, your partner, son, or daughter who was made to spend the equivalent of a sentence for assault, in prison, without charge, would that be an acceptable sacrifice to make to help the police with their enquiries?


Find out more about this at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17539

Ten GOOD reasons why extending pre-charge detention is a BAD idea:

1. UNDERMINES one of our most basic rights, enshrined in UK law as far back as Magna Carta and now at the heart of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which UK is a signatory: the right for anyone who is detained by the state to be told promptly why they are being held and what they are charged with.

2. COMMUNITY relations will suffer if the Muslim community appears to be particularly targeted for prolonged pre-charge detention. This could have an impact on intelligence gathering and policing, and could undermine positive efforts to engage with Muslims in the UK.

3. IMPACT on any individuals detained for such a long time – in terms of their job, family, house, friendships and relationships within their community – would be devastating.

4. QUESTIONED widely by experts – Lord Goldsmith (former Attorney General), Stella Rimington (former MI5 Chief), Sir Ken MacDonald (Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service) and parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

5. UNDERMINES presumption of innocence –Two months in prison is roughly equivalent to the length of time someone might serve in prison for assault. Lengthy pre-charge detention would impose what is in effect a ‘sentence’ of two months on somebody who may never be charged with any crime.

6. UK ALREADY has by far the longest pre-charge detention period for offences related to terrorism of any common law state.

7. INTERNATIONAL STANDING – it is much harder for the UK to criticise the human rights records of other countries that lock people up without charge when we are doing so at home. This measure would give other countries a ‘green light’ to curtail civil liberties.

8. HISTORY – from Northern Ireland and Amnesty’s experience all over the world - shows that locking people up without charge doesn’t work.

9. STATEMENTS obtained from suspects could be deemed inadmissible at trial if detention conditions are considered to be unduly harsh.

10. SAFEGUARDS discussed are insufficient – the kind of judicial oversight proposed is in no way the same as charging someone and giving them the chance to defend themselves in a fair trial.