OK snotmonkey, you are right. There are a lot of nutters in the world. However, as you put it, "if a person commits a murder, rape, or sex attack their rights should be waved and their life should be taken. pure and simple." I have to disagree. When is a case of murder or sexual assault ever simple? Human rights are there to ensure that the accused are treated fairly and humanely. Not everybody accused of a violent crime just turns round and says "OK, it's a fair cop guv." This isn't 'Murder, She Wrote'. This is real life and, as Andy Hughes has already pointed out, the "wisdom of laws and human rights" are what make us part of a civilized society and not an anarchy. Even if someone does confess, don't you find it hypocritical to be appalled at the murder of someone and then want to take revenge by murdering that person? By human rights, I'm not talking about access to a pool table and digital TV, I'm talking about the right to a lawyer and medication if necessary, for example. One more thing, where did you come up with the idea that professional carers are "very likely" to sexually abuse people in their care? The vast majority of carers in this country carry out stirling work and have never committed an unfriendly act to anybody in their care. Occasionally you may come across a hostile carer, but you find a mix of people in every walk of life. I do see some merit in your arguement that the children should not have been allowed to wander off alone, but my thoughts on this are too long to mention here; I have gone on for long enough. It just seems to me as though you are trying to see everything in black and white, whereas the reality is often much more complex. These challenges to your own viewpoint are respectfully submitted.