One thing I really don't get about human rights activists is their adamant defense of murderers and their rather callous attitude toward the victims. I guess the focus is on those who are still living since the dead aren't going to rise from their graves, but I have trouble coming to terms with this kind of positive thinking.
Perhaps the intentions of these activists are good, but they are in a way encouraging people to commit crimes first then repent later.
Let's say someone kills your mother, father, sister, brother, friend or anyone you are close to. Is it really enough that the murderer typically 'repents' after the deed is done? I have doubts about some people feeling any genuine remorse for deeds they have done because people are different and some admit to enjoying murder. And if they do feel remorse, was it necessary to engage in such acts before deciding to change their ways?
There is an argument I often hear that punishing the criminals will not make your loved ones come back. This argument is something that I feel should only be used to help those who feel the loss of the victims cope with life and not to justify leniency on those who committed the crime.
It's important for those who were wronged to let go of past hurts so that they can enjoy life again (for their own sakes), but I think it's ridiculous to use this same argument to justify protecting a murderer who after all had no concern for a basic right that every human has according to these very same human rights activists: the right to life, liberty and security of person (Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights).