The Human Rights Act, Remains Ambiguous And Divergent

1227 Words5 Pages
The response to the much conspicuous question that many philosophers cross-examine encompassing the Human Rights Act, remains ambiguous and divergent. 'Do we have more rights than before? ' Seems to be key topic in todays society and although the framework provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and subsequently the safeguards provided by the legislation on liberty for subjects/citizens, the effectiveness of the safeguards in terms of police power and of arrest, detention, interrogation and the handling of police complaints remains under considerable telescopic scrutiny. While the accepted definition for 'powers of arrest ' clearly states that ' 'the powers of arrest are not something to be abused by the police or by a public citizen and are powers that should only be used responsibly ' ', in the opinion of Tony Benn and Andrew Hoods (1993), authority rests with self-serving elites amd tje omdividua;s liberties envisaged by philosophers auch as Tom Paine are far from ensrhined. In fact, Tony Benn goes as far as to say that in Britain, we are in fact 'subjects ' rather than citizens. If Britain were to ever become a fairer democracy, Benn believed that that a radical and democratic ovehaul of the system is essential. While the British constitution promotes the intention of treating citizens as 'freemen ' (or women) as well as adverstise the purpose of the states existance as a mechanism to serve the citizen aas well as embody the aggregate of the
Open Document