The media and criminal policy are focused on offenders who constitute a possible threat to society and individuals. Spectacular crimes, jail escapes, and violent and frequent recidivism incidents are examples of perpetrators who fall under this category. On the one hand, criminal justice systems have a responsibility to safeguard society against these individuals. They are, on the other hand, obligated to adhere to human rights. Thus, the interaction between security and the rights of the perpetrators is pronounced for this group of criminals.
No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel or degrading treatment or punishment on the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, it is essential when dealing with dangerous criminals because highly harsh measures may be used at all levels of the criminal process in these situations. Differentiated procedures have been created across Europe to deal with so-called “dangerous” criminals. Different approaches to the problem of dealing with violent criminals provide some fascinating comparisons. Even though the notion of rehabilitation has had a significant impact on American sentencing and penal practices, the federal courts in the United States have yet to establish a constitutional right to rehabilitation. In contrast, a handful of European countries have made rehabilitation a constitutional requirement.
I am afraid I have to disagree with the Georgian court, as it infringes upon human rights. According to Freeman, “the concept of human rights provides a way of thinking about such events” (Freeman, 2017, p. 3). Everyone has rights that are the same for everyone. People should understand that even if a person has broken the law, it is still a person who has rights. Therefore, the heads of state should pay attention to this problem and not do such actions as the Georgian court does.
Reference
Freeman, M. (2017). Human rights. John Wiley & Sons.