Human Rights of Convicted Criminals

Nine Afghans were recently granted leave to remain (and work) in Britain after, in 2000, they hijacked a Boeing 727 on an internal flight in Afghanistan and forced it to land at Stansted Airport, near London. Mr. Justice Sullivan ruled that although in normal circumstances they would be deported back to their country of origin, this was incompatible with the Human Rights Act (an implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights) as sending the nine back to Afghanistan might endanger their lives.

What seems to have been missed in this case is that not only was Mr. Justice Sullivan's ruling completely compatible with British law, it complies perfectly with the European Convention. Many, including the Prime Minister, have called for amendments to the Human Rights Act, but I find it difficult to see what could be changed without forcing Britain to withdraw from the Convention.

The Government have found themselves between a rock and a hard place: on the one hand there is the majority of public opinion, which wants foreign criminals promptly deported; on the other hand there is the principle of human rights. It is rare for the majority of public opinion in a Western liberal democracy, such as Britain, to be opposed to the Human Rights Act, as it stands, but that's where it currently is - even if few would admit it.

Now the Home Office has to decide what it can do to stay within the rules of the Convention while preventing a similar ruling being given in the future. Needless to say, this is a near-impossible task. The obvious solution would be to put people in prison, but then what should be done once their sentence finishes? The train of thought then leads us to life imprisonment, but that would be impractical, expensive, and unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps we could deport such criminals to third countries, but which countries would stand up and say, "Yes, we want some criminals!"? Or, we could say that criminals lose their human rights as soon as they commit a crime of a certain seriousness, but that goes against the most basic principle of human rights (that they apply to everyone in all circumstances) and then we have an argument over what "level" of crime would warrant the removal of the perpetrator's rights.

This is one issue where I genuinely have no opinion other than to say that something has to be done. What that "something" is, I'll leave to the powers-that-be.