Balancing People's Rights
The BBC reported the other day that a solicitor had failed to overturn a court supervision order imposed on a convicted rapist - Robert Greens.
Robert Greens was sent to jail for 5 years a very violent attack on a young Dutch woman - a visitor to Edinburgh at the time - whose injuries were so severe that at first the police thought she had been the victim of a car crash.
Following his release from prison the court imposed a supervision order on Greens - because the police and other authorities still regarded him as a real threat to public safety.
The supervision order required Greens to be electronically monitored and accompanied at all times - by police officers - as well as having two specialist social workers residing with him permanently - so that one is always awake.
In addition Greens is not allowed to approach children or women under any circumstances - is not allowed any access to the Internet - and is subject to curfews and travel restrictions.
The police explained the need for such continuing restrictions on Greens by pointing out that his risk of re-offending was high - and that Greens had made threats of violence to people from prison.
A police spokesperson said:
"He (Greens) has a very violent past and he has been diagnosed as a psychopath. Is he a sexual danger? My answer is unequivocally yes.
The offence he was convicted of was impulsive. The most worrying thing is that he doesn't accept he raped the victim. This is despite overwhelming DNA evidence and conviction.
How can he address his offending behaviour if he can't admit his guilt?"
Robert Greens lawyer - Tony Kelly, a human rights specialist - argued that the supervision order contravened his client's human rights.
An obvious point but not a very telling one - to me at least - since the purpose of the order was to protect the human rights of other people whom Greens is liable to attack, injure and rape.
Now it seems to me that these kind of case is completely fatuous and without merit - they give the whole business of human rights a bad name.
As if the rights of a violent rapist - who is in denial over his crime - should outweigh the rights of the wider public.
What puzzles me is how such a violent man received only 5 years in prison for such a terrible crime?
Because if he had been sent to jail for a much longer period, the police - and everyone else - would have been spared this nonsense.
Cases such as this one should make the criminal justice system stop and think.
I have no doubt that if the issues involved were debated more widely - including lawmakers in the Scottish Parliament - Scotland's criminal justice system would be much less open to abuse in future.
