Should prisoners have rights?

Okay, everyone has rights, but how far should these rights extend to prisoners? Should those who have broken the law have the same rights as the law abiding public? Is it really fair for those who have committed crimes to be allowed to watch television and play pool? Is prison really punishment enough?

Over the last ten years the number of prisoners have increased and it has been suggested that a stint in prison does not deter offending behaviour. Should the UK therefore look towards other means of punishment? Or maybe, they should make prison sentences a bigger deterrent. The figures for re-offending are increasing, suggesting that putting offenders in prison is not successful in stopping them committing crimes.

What about their basic rights? Well okay maybe they should retain the right to life and the right not to be tortured (although this may be controversial in the eyes of their victims), and have the right to live in humane conditions - after all we have abolished the death penalty, but why make prisons such a comfortable place for them to be when they are supposed to be being punished?

Vivisection - what are the boundaries?

Following recent controversy over the work done by Darley Oaks Farm, in Newchurch, UK, it raises the question: is vivisection morally wrong? It appears that there is no specific law in the UK regulating vivisection, and many animals are being used for non-pharmaceutical testing. While using animals for pharmaceutical testing may be justifiable, do we really need to test products such as make-up and washing-up liquid on these creatures? The Government has failed to implement UK or EU law stating that where a non-animal or less painful alternative method exists, the traditional animal test method should no longer be allowed. It is recognised that the Government cares more about convenience for researchers than animal protection.

It boils down to the question: Do animals have rights? This is where the controversy lies! An animal is viewed "less important" than a human, yet religion conveys that all animals are God's creatures. Is it right that we test products on animals? There are many companies that do not and they can provide good quality products which outsell many animal tested versions. Many people I know specifically go for products with the "not tested on animals" label.

People tend to raise the opinion that animal testing is wrong for non-pharmaceutical products, yet okay for those which help the advances of medicine. How can that line be drawn? Surely both are cruel to animals. The answer seemingly points to the fact that we "humans" need these products, but do not need cosmetic products also produced through animal testing.

What about organ transplantation from"animals" to "humans"? That is a different argument. Those who support vivisection must surely approve of this method of maintaining and improving the life of humans, but sadly many do not. This is a certain way of improving the quality of those urgently in need of organ transplantation, can this not be compared to vivisection for medical purposes? Why is it so different?


http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4178166.stm