Task

Describe the principles that underpin the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the United Nations Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. Is it practical for these rules to be applied to people being held in police custody? Discuss with reference to national standards and recommendations from local inquiries, where relevant.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND POLICE CUSTODY

The minimum rules were adopted by the United Nations in 1955 in Geneva and they were meant to seek out to exercise good practice as well as principle towards the handling of prisoners along with the administration of these institutions. The general applications rules seek to provide conducive environment for all prisoners regardless of nationality, status, race, sex, color, language, religion, property, political opinion, social origin or other rank or status (Riley, 2010).

These rules govern the detention conditions in relation to detainees as well as the refugees and asylum-seekers. These rules come from several sources but they are emphasized by the ordinary general norms that state that no individual shall be caused to experience cruelty, torture, degrading punishment or treatment as well as inhuman treatment. The rules add that all people denied their independence are supposed to be treated with compassion and human nature as well as with respect in favor of the intrinsic dignity of that individual (Riley, 2010).

The UN Standards extend these rules to individuals who have been arrested or else imprisoned with no charges. In addition the accommodation of prisoners is done with careful selection in accordance with their ability to associate with one another. Every prisoner is supposed to be in his personal cell by himself, giving exception during temporary overcrowding where the prison administration can override the rule.  The rooms should be well ventilated and regularly kept clean with enough lighting and heating to facilitate easy working, living or reading in the rooms or cells (Sensen, 2011).

The UN Charter conceptualizes dignity of individuals in a neither specific way that is neither based on culture nor normative ways. It fails to define specific ways in which dignity ought to be realized but it stresses on the fact that it should pass through other standards, legality and the law. For more than six decades the thought of the dignity of mankind has been on the increase especially on the political arena as far as human rights is concerned (Sensen, 2011).

In the UN documents, human dignity is presented as a good reason for the rights of human beings. Kretzmer argues that it is impossible to apply the modern notion of dignity referring to philosophy’s history to support the conception and if so it would be necessary to apply a dissimilar notion of dignity applying a different thought pattern (Kretzmer & Klein, 2002).

The United Nations Minimum Rules are not directed towards education but rather towards the juvenile system, for justice. They state that the juvenile fair dealing systems should first and foremost put emphasis on the welfare of the young people ensuring that any response should at all times be proportional to the conditions of the offenders as well as the offence. The rules also promote the application of diversion line ups that take away the youth from the process involved in criminal justice while implementing supportive or else community services. They also make certain that the privacy right is adhered to along with procedural safeguards with presupposition of innocence inclusive (Kretzmer & Klein, 2002).

The UN minimum rules make sure that there are conducive proceedings that seek the child’s best interest whereas young people get the chance to participate as well as freely express themselves. Through the rules inquiry reports are supposed to be used on educational, family and social backgrounds to identify along with providing proper social services. In addition institutionalization needs to be avoided by all means through undertaking measures such as community service, probation or counseling. This should be the last resort and finally focus of institutionalization should be laid on helping young people develop into productive members within the society (Cipriani, 2009).

The people held in custody of the police are few compared to the population of an entire nation. Thus, as a result of these low numbers higher chances are they could lack a voice that is strong enough to air their grievances to the public. The imbalance of power between the detainees and the police in cells will therefore create grounds for impossibilities of the detainees to change their physical surroundings. This all along has created avenues for having the rights of the detainees infringed (Kamolins & Tait, 2008).

This gives us a historical picture of how uncivilized our societies still are in terms of treating the detainees in prison. Unfortunately, the majority detained in most cases are usually not crime victims, they lay there with no offence charges on them while some await assessments on their mental health and others sleep off outcomes of intoxication of alcohol. Therefore, though the rules will have more weight on prison systems, they should be more pertinent to how detainees are treated in cells (Kamolins & Tait, 2008).

The rules state that persons that are detained or put in prisons without charge should have a guarantee of same protection as those other prisoners that have been charged or are awaiting charges. Any applications made on them ought to be conducive for the gain of this extraordinary group of individuals in custody. Given that no actions will be undertaken that imply that rehabilitation or re-education is appropriate to individuals that are not found guilty of any illegal offence (OHCHR, 2007).

It is established that dignity has some functional stability and is a permanent part not only of our moral vocabulary but also of our legal vocabulary. It comes to terms with a person’s denigration with a declaration of the person’s worth. Some argue that dignity is coherentwith minimum humanity standards which most often than not are observed in the gross as well as systematic violations of life, integrity, liberty and equality (OHCHR, 2007).

Dignity within international law as far as detention is conc erned asserts the preservation of dignity during detention. In most cases it is associated with ruling out of degrading or inhuman punishment. It attaches this with rehabilitation stipulating that punishment that is regarded non-violative must have an element that is rehabilitative.  Within the general instruments of human rights we can read implicit minimal protection as well as complete rehabilitation rights (Henham, 2005).

The UDHR[1]fights for the person’s worth, his inalienable dignity and that of definite rights. It also includes minimal protections along with a further generalized personal defence of own integrity. It also encompassed in ICCPR[2] which applies dignity referring to the ways in which individual detainees are treated. The virtue dignity is also integrated in CRC which links it with detention in both its nature as well as its durations (Henham, 2005).

Duty of care requires an individual to treat others as well as the public cautiously, giving attention and prudence that any reasonable individual, given the circumstances, is expected to do. Therefore, if the actions of a person fail to meet up this standard he will be considered negligent and the damages that will occur will be asserted in a court case for negligence. Duty of care is the first constituent of negligence (Henham, 2005).

In numerous settings the programs for alcohol treatment establish policies that are against contuinity in work through clients that continue to relapse in crucial cases where sobriety is a major criterion needed in continued treatment.The strategies are on the basis of the philosophy which states that clients who drink actively are not entitled to social support. This is because it might reduce their distress levels thus undermining their enthusiasm for sobriety (Henham, 2005).

In the course of caring, confidentiality should be highly practised. Aafter realizing the confidentislity of the issue the care giver should understand the unique requirements that are mostly significant to getting informed consent in matters pertaining personal or moral views or else treatment programs in cases like drug abuse. In addition, duty of care should be considered in relation to the population involved and the programs. Later, the care giver needs to fmiliarize himself with the features of reverence to self-determination that are quite frequent in the area and lastly familiarizing with requirements that arise needed for documentation by practitioners (Littrell & Ashford, 1995).

Confidentiality for instance may either retain people or keep them away from seeking the required treatment for addictions like alcohol. Enhancing self-referrals into treating people with issues on drug abuse or alcohol was the forward motion of the movement directed towards drug prevention, the treatment along with rehabilitation giving provisions for the protection of the client’s confidentiality (Littrell & Ashford, 1995).

The government has put emphasis on the novel procedural safeguards that have been introduced. The law that has been recently introduced has significant incidences on the security forces members’ attitudes in issues concerned with respecting the fundamental rights of human beings during the time in which they are detained in the custody of the police. The effect is strengthened by the continuous adoption of educational as well as regulatory measures aimed at ensuring different norms as well as regulations in relation with  detention in the police custodies are effectively applied at all stages of security forces (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 1998).

Officials in charge of the law enforcement process in relations with people in custody or else detention are not entitled to use force. On the other hand they should also not use firearms. The only exceptions given to the former is strictly when necessary for security maintenance as well as ensuring order in the institution. The officials are also allowed to use force in instances when there is an occurrence if threat to personal security (Council of Europe, 2001).

In the latter, as regards the relations between the police officials and the detainees, the police officials are strictly entitled to firearms when defending themselves in cases of personal insecurity or when defending others against immediate death threats or else self injury. In other cases they will use firearms when needed to thwart the running away of detainees or people in custody (Council of Europe, 2001).

In the year 1215, an important time in the history of America births the Magna Carta. During this year a document had been signed by a King from England and up to date that document is well thought-out to be the naissance document of the liberties of the English people and therefore the American liberties. Magna Carta greatly influenced the US Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights (Magna Carta 1215, n.d).

King John, the King of England had been forced to sign this document because it to a great extent reduced his powers as the sovereign ruler of England. The charter also paved way for the configuration of a parliament that was powerful. Thus, this document turned out to be the starting point for the rights of the English citizens. The content of the charter was outlined by the Archbishop Langton along with the most influential Barons from England (Magna Carta 1215, n.d).

Following prior interferences by the king regarding the appointment of bishops, the Magna Carta would ensure the freedom of the church in this matter. In addition the charter ruled out the levying of taxes with an exclusion of the usual feudal dues. Nevertheless, in cases whereby the levies had to be imposed on taxes, then it would have to be so with the Parliament’s or Great Council’s consent. In addition the uniformity of weights as well as measures was established all the way through the realm (Magna Carta 1215, n.d).

Magna Carta contributed greatly to the dignity and proper treatment of all sorts of mankind.  Through the Declaration in Maryland Constitution, no free man was supposed to be imprisoned or taken, or his freehold, privileges and liberties disseized. In addition it prohibited man from being outlawed or else exiled in addition to being destroyed in any sort or manner. It continued to read that man was interdicted from being deprived of own life, freedom or property, but only by the ruling of the land rules and regulations and his peers (Magna Carta 1215, n.d).

References

Cipriani, D. (2009). Children’s rights and the minimum age of criminal responsibility:a global perspective. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Corey, G., Corey, M. S., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions, 5th edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Council of Europe. (2001). Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights: volume 4. London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Henham, R. (2005). Punishment and Process in International Criminal Trials. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Kamolins, L., & Tait, S. (2008). Protecting human rights for people in police custody. Paper presented at the Australasian Human Rights and Policing Conference, Melbourne 8-10 December 2008 (pp. 1-12). Australia: api Office of Police Integrity, Victoria.

Kretzmer, D., & Klein, E. (Eds.). (2002). The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. , 111.

Littrell, J., & Ashford, J. B. (1995). Is it proper for psychologists to discuss medication with clients? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 26, 238-244.

Magna Carta 1215. (n.d). Retrieved August 9, 2011, from http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/magna-carta.htm

OHCHR. (2007). Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Retrieved August 9, 2011, from

Riley, S. (2010). Human dignity: comparative and conceptual debates. International Journal of Law in Context , 6 (2), 117-138.

Sensen, O. (2011). Human dignity in historical perspective: The contemporary and traditional paradigms. European Journal of Political Theory , 10 (1), pp. 71-91.