Obviously this does not exist as such, because some 800,000 people die each year in Britain alone. Perhaps then it should be re-designated as the "right not to have one's life arbitrarily terminated by the state". Even this more realistic definition does not really apply in Britain and is probably not entirely possible.
The death penalty ended in 1964 and since then nobody in Britain has been executed by the state. However the state does still kill a few of its citizens each year. The police shoot a small number of people and a few more die due to being restrained whilst resisting arrest. In none of these cases has there been what the Americans call "Due Process".
Some 900 people are murdered every year - does the government do enough to prevent this?
We also allow abortion, effectively on demand, and some 180,000 lives are terminated annually through this means.
Then there is the withholding of health care due to the decisions of officials that normally go unchallenged.
The most high profile case of this recently was 11 year old Jamie Bowen who suffered from leukemia and whose health authority declined to pay for further treatment. Her father took them to court and the case entered the public arena. Jamie was a very courageous and articulate young lady who won massive public support for her case. Had she been an unattractive old woman would anybody have cared? I have heard the arguments on both sides in her case and do not know who was right and who was wrong but I do know that we do not guarantee the citizens of this country the right to life particularly where it is going to cost a lot of money.

Torture is possibly he most dangerous of all state activities as it is always secretive and will inevitably lead to forced confessions and therefore wrongful convictions, which in those countries that still practice it, often leads on to extra-judicial executions.
Secret police and networks of informers seem to be the first step down this road. In communist East Germany the Stasi were all powerful and there was intelligence gathered on almost everyone.
Should we in Britain allow such devices as telephone tapping and Closed Circuit Television Cameras - do these improve the security of the majority? Or do they make it easier for the state to control us?

I think most people would agree that this is a fundamental right and one that the state should do everything in its power to guarantee. But what is a "fair" trial - I fear that there are people who think that any trial resulting in a conviction is unfair. Trial procedures are constantly evolving. In the Middle Ages we had trial by ordeal and then later jury trials where the accused was not represented or even allowed to speak in their defence. We now have safeguards such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, taped interviews and the availability of fingerprint and D N A evidence all of which should contribute to fairer proceedings.
Is it reasonable to say that at any given point in time a fair trial is one in which both sides are properly represented before an impartial judge and a competent jury?
Justice is vital to a decent society and before people are deprived of the life, liberty or property there must be proper legal process with sufficient checks and balances and rights to appeal.

What rights should convicted criminals have? Should they have the same rights as innocent citizens? Surely they should have rights to food and water, to shelter and protection from arbitrary brutality from their guards. One may also feel that they should be protected from assault, rape and bullying by other prisoners and that they should have the right to be released once they have completed their sentence. But should they also have a right to phone cards and well equipped gymnasium facilities?
Amnesty International seems to think that whatever anybody has done they should in no way be deprived of their rights. Surely this is ridiculous - why should murderers, paedophiles, armed robbers, rapists etc. enjoy full human rights when they have so little regard for the rights of their victims?
Evolving standards of decency in society tend to mean that prison conditions will improve although usually lag behind conditions in the outside world. "Slopping out" has now been ended in most prisons. Fifty years ago few homes had an inside toilet and chamber pots were still widely used. Now almost every house has an inside flush toilet and prisons are following suit.
Prison food has also improved as has the variety of food available to the rest of us.
Many would welcome these changes as a move towards a decent humane society but would perhaps feel that prisons should not become secure luxury hotels.
However there are pressure groups such as The Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform Trust and Amnesty International who campaign continuously for ever better conditions, as it would seem, does Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Should criminals have the right to automatic parole after serving half or two thirds of their sentences irrespective of their behaviour in prison or their potential danger to the rest of us on release? Personally I think that sentences should mean what they say and their should be a fixed rate of remission for genuine good behaviour say one month for every year. I feel that the present sentencing regime is nothing more than a con trick perpetrated on the general public to make it seem that the courts are dealing severely with those who are convicted.
Should multiple murderers ever be paroled or should "life" mean life for them? Most people will probably agree that in the worst cases "life" should mean what it says. But yet there are always those people and groups who campaign to free lifers irrespective of the enormity of their crimes. One could argue that if you have murdered several people you should forfeit any rights to anything and be grateful that the state allows you to continue to live at all.
Should sex offenders be castrated as part of their sentence? In some states of America a rapist will spend a lesser time in prison if they agree to chemical castration. Is this a violation of their human rights or just plain common sense?
Should persistent offenders (of both sexes) be sterilised so that they cannot bring children into the world to follow in their footsteps?
Juvenile offenders have been given ever more rights under what many see as misguided legislation that in most cases removes any fear of real punishment. It is noteworthy that it is juveniles who commit a disproportionately large number of "minor" crimes, of the type that effect the ordinary person most.
Corporal punishment has disappeared in schools and as a penalty that can be imposed by the courts. A policeman cannot strike a child, irrespective of the situation without risking prosecution and dismissal. In most cases children who are arrested are released on police bail in a few hours, free to re-offend, as they so often do. When they finally come before the courts the sentences they receive in most cases are derisory and usually non-custodial so they are neither particularly bothered nor prevented from committing further crimes. A fifteen year old lad I know pleaded guilty to seven offences of domestic burglary and two of possession of drugs. His sentence - a probation order and a fine of £60. What message does this send him and his friends? What protection does it offer to the rest of us? Being burgled is a traumatic experience.
Have we simply created a generation of little monsters who know their rights and thus know that they are "fireproof". I think we have and I fear that it is the children themselves who will be the ultimate victims. Once they reach adulthood the courts happily send them off to prison and in doing so commit them to a life of crime from which there is no way back in the majority of cases.

You may think from the foregoing that I agree with Jeremy Bentham and to a point I do. However I do feel that it is important that we should have some guaranteed rights and that there should be a proper mechanism for deciding what they are. I think that a standing committee should be set up consisting of lay people representing a broad spectrum of society who would make recommendations to parliament after having undertaken a careful/cost benefit analysis of each proposed right with the help of expert witnesses. One third of the members of the committee could stand down each year so that there was always an influx of new blood and new ideas. Parliament would not like this erosion of their powers but does not have the time or the structure to take testimony from experts and to carry out an in depth analysis of each right. Also it is prone to be influenced by pressure groups, the media and thoughts of re-election and therefore cannot always be relied upon to make the right choices.