The limits of justice
Rights of prisoners should be based on severity of their crimes
Amir sought the right to become a parent while shocking us with the thought of his offspring. Sela had the entire country on its feet when he escaped his prison guards, while maintaining his right to file lawsuits.
And Popper, who had been on 124 prison furloughs during which he has fathered three children, is suspected of driving without a license during his last furlough, crossing a dividing line and causing an accident that killed his wife and son.
Should every criminal be entitled to civil rights, or should the severity of the crime also impact a prisoner's rights?
When Amir asked for conjugal rights, High Court Justice Ayala Procaccia ruled that a murderer should not be deprived of his rights to bear children: "…Amir was and has remained one of the most reproached criminals in the national conscience… yet despite this, the moment the verdict is handed down the punitive measure is completed…as with all other prisoners, harsh restrictive measures apply to Amir…but he has basic human rights, which were not taken away from him."
This verdict got Amir what he asked for, but prior to that Justice Mishael Heshin stated that in instances where security was of concern, conjugal rights could be deprived. "This is not an absolute right…we should preoccupy ourselves with the act of balance…a primary consideration is of course that of security."
It is hardly surprising that, after a short while, the murderer suggested an alternative – transferring semen to his partner. This time it couldn’t be argued that a security risk existed, and later on the Shin Bet admitted that it would not endanger national security - thus, Amir paved his way to fatherhood.
Public's right for protection
The question as to which civil rights should be granted to a prisoner charged with severe crimes isn't easy. Benny Sela sits in the cell next to Amir. Sela left his cell quite frequently in order to implement another civil right: The right to sue. While he has filed dozens of baseless lawsuits against the authorities and civilians - shifting from being a serial rapist to a serial prosecutor – the possibility of limiting his "court vacations" was never examined. And that's how he took advantage of his police guard's slumber to escape.
And yes, it is true that Ami Popper paid a heavy price, but what would have happened had the casualties been in the car coming from the opposite direction?
The High Court should not just protect the rights pertaining to parenting, marital relations, legal procedures or prison leave but also the public's right for protection against such criminals.
There are circumstances that not only justify the right to freedom of movement, but also the right to bear children. Namely, along with respecting human rights, the severity of the crime should also be examined.
It appears that the natural sense of justice defines limits that would also serve the law-abiding public and protect it from criminals who are not deterred by an additional prison term.
The right to initiate serial legal proceedings can be limited to a certain extent, and the furlough of those sentenced to life imprisonment should be limited to a certain radius from the prison facility.
The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in the Dixon case, a life prisoner who married a released prisoner inside the jail, that his request for artificial insemination would be rejected due to his past, the severity of the offense and the harm inflicted on the child who would be raised without a father for many years.
Justice Procaccia, who made reference to this ruling, found it inappropriate to follow in its footsteps. Had its voice been heard - the fate of Amir, Sela and Popper would have been the same as Dixon's.
Moriel Matalon is an attorney
