I absolutely agree with you that when known criminals walk around unprosecuted and able to prey on people with seeming impunity, it is a travesty. And we need to figure it out and put a stop to it!

But it simply doesn't follow that such people have "more" rights than anyone else, or that the solution lies in taking away rights, that belong to us all, away from us. Why should I allow the police more powers to batter down my door, or listen to my phone conversations, or retain my email/google records, in order to make me "safer" from criminals?
a) it doesn't work – I end up with less rights, the government ends up with more power (and power, as we know, corrupts and leads to more potential for predation and abuse), and the criminals still get off.
b) the criminals are not actually protected from prosecution by their "rights" but by their success in instilling fear and loyalty. The most persistent problem that recurs in trying to prosecute these cases is the "never saw nuffin" phenomenon – ie "bought" or frightened witnesses.
c) people that persist in arguing that criminals are too highly "protected" by their human rights (or that enemy combatants are too highly "protected" by their human rights), so persist in order to win their campaign to remove those rights from me and you. Don't be fooled – this arguments is usually fought in an emotional way – and when people try to manipulate your emotions it is because they really don't want you using your critical faculties.

If we seriously want to put an end to the seeming impunity of such criminals as you describe, we need to provide a lot more protection for witnesses (and here I don't just mean the government – I mean people need to feel that if they stand up in court and testify, we're all going to be out there applauding them, and watching their backs!). We also need to work on ways to isolate the criminals from the support of their communities. People who are not trapped by poverty are far less vulnerable to being "bought" by them, people who are certain of being strongly protected, and of winning great social approval and gratitude, for whistle-blowing (and this also applies in those other well-known criminal dens – such as banks, churches, political parties, etc) are less likely to be frightened out of their wits for doing so. Public shame and public approval and support (properly applied) are weapons we have forgotten how to wield effectively.

Nevertheless, we also need to continue to protect our human rights, now more than ever, when both governments and private persons command so much useful technology for surveillance – and this is so even if criminals make use of such rights, too.

And yes, I've been burgled, twice from my home and twice from my car.

Despite containing a number of valid points, this comment has been deleted because of personal abuse directed towards another commenter.]

Scotlyn — I think this is about householders, not police, and in any case we already have that sort of thing happening. I remember years ago, a man standing at a bus stop in Dublin was riddled with Uzi-fire by police who thought he was a bank robber.

That case, was one where a householder felt threatened by someone who was genuinely not attempting to threaten them, and very possibly the householder would have shot him themselves if they had owned a gun, instead of having to call the police. Both householders and police can make mistakes.

Mark is very good at clarifying Irish law very expertly, and I'm certainly no expert. But I have watched the PR spinners invent the notion of "criminal's rights" over the past 2-3 decades, starting in the US, where serious efforts have been going on for years to undermine the wonderful US Constitution. The "talking point" that right wing commentators are supposed to harp on about until it sinks into everyone's unconscious, and you've forgotten why you ever thought there was something wrong with it, is that "criminals" have rights and "victims" don't. The aim of the game is to try to make ordinary people willing to give up the rights that belong to us all, in order to prevent them being used by criminals. The fact that criminals happen to make use of your right or my right to due process of law, to be assumed to be innocent until guilt is proven, to remain silent when questioned, etc, doesn't make these "criminal's rights."

As Mark explains, our law is fine. There is no history of householders being prosecuted for defending themselves in Ireland. Therefore there is another agenda here. And that agenda is more than likely going to impact on us all, not just on criminals.