European Convention on Human Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

European Convention on Human Rights - Essay Example However, the legal precedent regarding the applicability of human rights to aliens and immigrants in deportation hearings largely excludes Article 6 from applicability based on the rulings that these are administrative hearings and not criminal trials or charges. Despite the fact that fundamental human rights are being decided and discussed in immigration and alien extradition proceedings, the courts have allowed little extension of the ECHR in this realm of legal practice. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights additionally sets requirements for a public hearing and announcement of the verdict, while accepting that this can be retrained in certain instances of â€Å"the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the inte rests of justice.†2 The procedural safeguards found in this section of Article 6 have been determined to be not applicable to administrative decisions, based not on any of the reasons stated therein, but rather in the jurisdiction of the proceedings for the expulsion, deportation or extradition of aliens. In this regard, the current state of the law can arguably be said to be based in outmoded aspects of identity that are inconsistent with globalized society and modern forms of mass-transportation. Populations and economies are much more dynamic in the 21st century than in the early era of modernity when the rights of sovereignty of nation-states and the fundamental rights of individuals were first developed into human rights accords. Human rights are designed to protect fundamental liberties of the individual against intrusion by the State in recognition of the inalienability of the stated rights. Thus denying them by fact of the temporary â€Å"alien† status of the pe titioner or a jurisdictional element of law seems to point to the circumvention of the intent of the founders in this instance. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights also states that, â€Å"everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence; (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.†

Letter to the Committee Saying Why Brain Rejuvenation Should Not Be Essay

Letter to the Committee Saying Why Brain Rejuvenation Should Not Be Allowed - Essay Example Within the context of brain transplant, a person is only identical to the later person if the later person has the entire body as the earlier person, subsequently, brain rejuvenation results to memory duplication whereby a person’s memory can be used by several other persons. Prior to the suggested â€Å"brain rejuvenation† procedure on Nick, Dr. Mathews performed a â€Å"brain transplant† operation on Julia North and subsequently the members of the committee agreed that Julia North’s life was saved. Perhaps we may need to understand a few basics and events that led to this case. Before this operation, Julia North was a young woman run over by a car in efforts to save the life of a child who wandered onto the tracks. Mary Frances who was the child’s mother had stroke while watching the events unfold. The two victims were brought to this facility where Dr. Mathews performed his ‘Brain transplant’ operation which the committee approved an d agreed that saved Julia’s life. It is also important to note that at the time of accident, the survivor, Julia North’s body was dying and the brain was okay and Dr. Mathews transferred her brain into another body. The committee further agreed that it was Julia’s life that was saved since the survivor had memories of Julia based on the being Julia. While arriving at this conclusion, this committee must have been guided by the sophisticated memory account that provides that when a person is numerically identical to a later person if and only if the person has memories of being earlier person that is so caused in the right way. My objection for this matter rests with Cohen’s views on this matter. Julia North had one up until the time of accident, and another body after the operation. This implies that one person had two bodies. Therefore a person cannot be simply identified with a human body and therefore something must be wrong with the view that the comm ittee had adopted on this case as it implies that if a similar operation were to be carried out on brain transplant, then afterwards this person would be a person with new body since the person with that body has a memory of having a similar case as Julia if caused in the ‘right way.’ Right in this scenario has a particular meaning of interest, and must satisfy three conditions; if a subject experiences some event, this experience leaves a trace in the brain of the event and this trace that has been left is later responsible for content of a memory, then in this way we can say that the memory is caused in the right way. Dear members, we are faced with another problem of a new technique called ‘Brain rejuvenation’ yet to be performed on Nick. While adopting earlier propositions to defend approving Julia’s case we are also suggesting that the same logic as earlier proposed would be applicable and as such the committee is justified in saying that Nick w ould be the survivor of the operation , and I quote, â€Å"Nick would be the survivor of the brain rejuvenation procedure because the survivor would have the memories of being Nick and there would be more than one person of being Nick.† But dear members, Nick cannot be more than one person and this do not seems right. Using the same procedure as advanced in this new ‘brain rejuvenation’ process, the committee has argued that saving Nick’s life will be accomplished by replacing his brain with a duplicated brain from someone else and as such his survival are justified on the premise that the same bodies would be of this new person, say Alex and that Nick would then have Alex’s memories and they remember them in the right way. Premised on the duplication theory, when someone