Who really hold the cards on rights?

The law is a delicate part of our functioning as a society. As are the rights of individuals. However, being human beings, there are times when one’s actions will infringe on the rights of others, to varying degrees.

It is important to have a model that balances the rights of both parties out.

Many legal systems are written and function to protect the rights of the perpetrator of the illegal action. Two valuable protections they enjoy is doctor/ patient and attorney/ client privilege. Both state that the professional who ‘works’ with them, may not reveal information about the client/patient, even if it is pertinent to a legal case, unless of course, ordered to my a court of law. Both professions face censure if this law is broken and they reveal information that was shared in terms of this privilege.

Under normal circumstances I do agree that there should be some sort of protection for clients or patients that would legally stop these professional people from sharing sensitive information with a third party. However, it is when we, as a society, place this privilege before the value of a human life, it becomes a worrying factor.

For example, should a Mr. A kill a Mr. Z in cold blood, and at the time he is a patient of Dr. D, a psychiatrist, and confesses to him. Dr. D may not talk about the act or report it, all he can do is try to talk Mr. A into confessing. Then, should Mr. A be arrested and retains the services of an attorney, Mrs. K, then, even if he confesses, her hands are tied.

If the attorney puts up a good defense, then Mr. A might just get away with murder.

To me, this is morally wrong. The protection of an obvious criminal is morally wrong. The essence of the matter is, a serious crime has been committed and the very same people protecting the criminal, are the ones who swore a duty to society. If we as the general public withhold information, we are liable for prosecution as an accomplice, or defeating the ends of justice or a similar offense. But, if you are a professional, then this silence is actually expected of you. To put it as it is, the criminal’s right to protection is higher than the need for justice.

Why, when somebody has wronged society as such, transgressing consciously, do they suddenly enjoy so much protection? This is very evident in our society. If an alleged criminal injures a victim and then in turn is also injured, the criminal would go to a private hospital at the tax-payer’s expense, whereas the victim (assuming he has no medical aid) gets taken to a provincial hospital. If a criminal attacks you in your own home, you do not have an automatic right to fight back, because you have to prove that your actions were in no way, excessive in dealing with the threat. This is only one of a few cushy protections our criminals enjoy.

Now, we as law abiding, tax paying citizens should be the ones who have the say. We should be the ones who are protected against this ruthless mob that we fall victim to every day. Medical and legal professions should be given a clause that deals with criminal knowledge and there should be penalties for not furnishing information in a criminal case, especially if the case is a capital crime like rape or murder.

The laws that are put in place to protect the victims, should do just that. Instead though, the perpetrator has more and more rights and it is virtually impossible to punish them to the extent that their crime deserves. Our criminal justice system is also horrible inadequate. People who sit on the bench are tied down so that all sentences handed down the criminal, must run concurrently. Therefore, if somebody is sentence to a total of 300 years for let’s say murder, robbery and a couple of smaller crimes, he will only serve the length of the longest sentence, which, if it is a life sentence would be 25 years. This is of course excluding parole and pardons and so on. So, in effect a total of 300 years amounts to around 15-18 actually served. Sometimes even less. 

 It is obvious to any outsider, that this system is frightening. It would appear that the criminal enjoys a protection law abiding citizens deserve, but don't really have.

I am not by any stretch saying that prisoner’s should not have rights. But I am saying when their rights are in conflict with the society or the victim that they wronged, then the criminal’s rights are the ones that should be set aside.  Pillars of society like medical and legal professionals, even the religious professions, should be encouraged to furnish information on known crimes and criminals. They should be the ones setting the example for society to follow and in turn, make this a safer society to live in without criminals hiding behind legally built walls that do not serve the people that they were meant to protect.

We live in a society where the criminal is protected as his/her rights are so important to the detriment of the law-abiding citizens. Surely the scale of justice should tip in the correct direction and the laws should actually protect those that they are written to protect. I think with all of our focus on protecting the right’s of individual’s , particularly prisoners, we have taken our eye off the ball. We end up protecting those who transgressed the laws we set and in the end, those we should be protected, are the ones who get the short end.

For example, somebody breaks into your house with a weapon. The law has been interpreted by experts to mean that the trespasser has to attack you first before you can defend yours or your families’ life. Should the trespasser’s attack prove fatal, however, you will not be able to defend yourself or your family. It is ludicrous. Should somebody steal you belongings, let’s say a car, you may not use lethal force to stop them, unless your or somebody else’s life is directly threatened by this action. So, in short, according to the law, the person may take your belongings and you basically have to let them go. Yes, an over simplification, but that is what it amounts to.

The governments of the world, the judiciary and the entire legal system should take a step back and have a look from the outside in. They need to realize that the protections that they are affording criminals, are actually to the determent of law abiding citizens. We need a legal system that places the innocent first, that protects those who uphold the law and places their rights first. Criminals are criminals and should NEVER enjoy more rights or protection against the innocent party.