The LEFT IS ABUSING THIS. in south America gangs are let in control of jails!
Give everyone the right to have rights.
That’s actually a classic blunder. If you give everyone rights then that implies that they can be taken away
I’m looking at you, 13th amendment.
That’s a very good way of putting it. Reminds me of the developments in Russia.
You mean how Putin killed Navalny? Yes.
Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.
Russia’s got a history of stripping the rights from soldiers returning from battle, because having been in a foreign land meant they were now infected with capitalism and had to be imprisoned so as not to spread it.
Well, and take a look what the Russian government is doing to the people in Russia who have the audacity to want to mourn Navalnyjs death.
What is your plan to manage crime without limiting the rights of criminals?
Adding to what I have read in other comments: access to a free attorney, good prison conditions, possibility do work again after paying for the crime
Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.
You’ll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.
Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.
Does that work for you?
So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.
Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.
Working with kids and driving are not inalienable rights, those are privileges bestowed upon you by the state…
Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:
There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.
Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.
Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.
Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.
Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…
Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.
Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.
No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.
Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.
Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.
Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)
Let’s say you’re correct: ( ignoring that prison isn’t a right, but a punishment invocable by breaking law) that’s the only right that should be limited. It doesn’t justify removing any other right. Do you agree with that?
Yes, although I think imprisoning someone is limiting more than just one right. And if you don’t count restrictions like not being able drive as a right being limited, then I would agree.
Imprisonment except for life imprisonment is limited in time. It is based and justified on the purposes of criminal punishment. So limiting their rights for the limited time of their punishment is justified and necessary, but not afterwards. Also with capital punishment there is a reason why developed countries have outlawed it.
Punishment in a state of law typically has these purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution
Deterrence comes from the threat of imprisonment or in smaller cases, fines, social work etc.
Incapacitation is given through prison sentences. There is cases where the person is deemed to dangerous to be left out afterwards, so some countries have the institution of preventive detention. It is distinctly different from imprisonment though, because it should not serve as continued punishment. There can be non detentive incapacitations necessary. E.g. sbd. who has molested children would also be barred from working with children after he served his sentence.
Rehabilitation is often negelected in the US and other countries. If the person is to be released after their sentence, the sentence should prepare them from being able to become a law abiding member of society. Taking away their rights to vote and other measures are keeping them out of society, and contradict rehabilitation.
Retribution is the prison sentence. For it to be just, the person has served its retribution with the sentence.
Restitution has to be decided by the court, for how it is possible to compensate the victims. But the victims are not compensated by a permanent discrimination against the perpetrator.
How about raise the burden of proof and stop courts from delaying a trial until I give up?
You’re not describing a criminal, that’s an ex-convict
Tell that to “ex-convicts” who can’t vote.
Can’t believe you’re being downvoted. “Same as before…execution for significant theft”
Oh but ok, it’s cool, we’ll have voting rights after. No way someone could be reclassified as a capital criminal via the exact mechanism in the OP.
I mean it’s laudable to not make permanent second class citizens, but it misses the point that you can toss people in a horrendous prison system if your prison system isn’t designed for rehabilitation or treating people with dignity.
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about? This is the right for dignity, eatable food, meds, beds, etc.
The goal should be reducing criminality, right? So criminals should have the chance to reeducation and to go back to society. This can only be assured by law, with RIGHTS.
Those who disagree are the capitalist pigs who profit for incarcerating the poor, without any obligation for decent food, medications and lodging.
So I don’t think those are the rights OP is referencing exactly. Criminals should absolutely have the right to the things you mentioned, but I think OP was referencing more the right to vote, hold office, etc. In some states (and countries throughout history) those with felony equivalent convictions lose access to civic related rights. This severely limits their ability to participate in and therefore influence political and civic discourse and direction.
Yeah but, how can they fight for the rights I mentioned without the rights you mentioned?
Yeah I agree, but don’t you think its limiting someone’s rights to imprison them in the first place? That’s my entire point. Every method of reducing criminality other than simply ignoring it requires you to limit the rights of criminals.
Imprisonments takes freedom away from you. That is the price you pay.
Still, it doesn’t make you less human. It shouldn’t.
Humans are bipedal creatures that can walk places. Putting a human in a prison cell takes some of their humanity away.
Imprisonment is not a right, its a control system of the state. They should be the only party allowed to incarcerate, but when they sell it to private corps they can profit from it and it becomes a business, and this is the reason of all our discussion here.
No that has nothing to do with our discussion. Imprisoning someone inherently limits their rights. I didn’t say imprisonment was a right, I’m not sure where you got that from. The point is that imprisoning people is necessary, so limiting the rights of criminals is necessary.
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about?
I’m sure there’s more than a few people in here talking about gun ownership.
“cRiMe” is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue
No, crime is the issue. I get your point but meeting peoples needs won’t just end crime somehow. It will drastically reduce it, but it will always be an issue.
I’m generally against cops and “tough on crime” measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He’s also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.
Second is, make the government organization be botom-up, democracy or not.
Bottom up, democracy or not?
Maybe I’m just showing my ignorance here, but what bottom up government style doesn’t rely on some form of democracy?
Most governments make decisions with their bottoms, if that counts
Well yeah but all democracies have this enshrined in their laws one way or another. So it’s not like something people don’t already know.
And free speech. Don’t forget that.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
Being against free speech is tyrannical. Also…Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Whether there’s “good guys” in a war is debatable. But if you’re under the belief that there are good guys in wars, then we can point to basically every war in history.
Censorship during wars was actually the norm in the past. The Spanish influenza didn’t originate in Spain, it’s just that it was first reported there. Because Spain wasn’t a part of WWI. The news in the countries involved in the war were censored and couldn’t report on it.
Nazi propaganda was banned in the US and other allied countries in WWII.
People in the American Revolution were publicly tortured (tarred and feathered) for speaking out against the revolutionary government.
Sorry, history just isn’t as clean and simple as you might think.
Just to add to this, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a phrase often used to define to limits of free speech. However, this was an analogy used by Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe what it is like to oppose the draft in WWI. That part of the ruling stood for about 40 years.
How about Poland in ww2? I’d say they were “the good guys” since they were attacked unprovoked.
But if you’re under the belief that there are good guys in wars, then we can point to basically every war in history.
Fallacious logic. “If case X is true then it must be true in every case.”
Germany made being a Nazi illegal and everyone is fine with it. Except Nazis, but who gives a shit.
Germany made being a Nazi illegal and everyone is fine with it.
Denazification was something of a joke.
West German President Walter Scheel and Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger were both former members of the Nazi Party. In 1950, a major controversy broke out when it emerged that Konrad Adenauer’s State Secretary Hans Globke had played a major role in drafting antisemitic Nuremberg Race Laws in Nazi Germany.
Between Operation Paperclip, the incorporation of the CIA, and the Cold War formation of NATO, Nazis were rapidly reformed and reintroduced to the public sphere over the next decade.
Operation GLADIO in Europe transformed a bunch of the Italy / Greek / Belgium / France WW2-era fascists into cartel bosses and arms dealers spread all across the continent. Fascist ideology, in the wake of WW2, was returned to its original Communist roots and was justified as a means of compelling Europeans to stay true to their nationalist roots and not fall victim to the Soviet Internationalism sweeping through the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
Thanks to you fucking assholes we now have shitloads of Nazis and thousands of far right radicalizing conspiracist talk shows over all forms of media. You couldn’t budge on even the least amount of reasonable regulation and now you have entirely fucked up nearly all of the civilized western world.
Fucking idiot
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
The one snag in this philosophy I run into is that “We have to protect the rights of the accused!” only ever seems to apply to the folks that can pay for the good PR and lawyers. Meanwhile, the Sinclair owned broadcaster in your neck of the woods spams “Black man behaving blackly in black part of Blacksburg! Officers on the scene to assist in the kinetic engagement of criminal suspect!” headlines headlines 24/7/365 and then the same limited government enthusiasts create this enormous mental carve out for people they identify as Violent By Nature.
Then you get a local jail full of Sandra Blands and the only people who bat an eye are casually dismissed as Far-Left Defund the Police BLM Rioters.
On the one hand, an ex-President with 91 indictments who moves through the criminal justice system at the speed of a snail. On the other, George Floyd getting his neck flattened because he passed a retailer a bad $20. And if you question the glacial pace of the first case, you’re accused of advocating the second. But also, if you oppose the casual police murder of suspects, you secretly want Donald Trumps doing industrial scale counterfeiting all over Minneapolis uncontested.
Countries that are known for corruption often have massive bureaucracies that are full of little seemingly inconsequential laws that most people can safely ignore all the time. The result is that nearly everybody’s breaking some rule just to function with some level of efficiency in society. In fact if you wanted to follow every rule it would break you.
The result is that whenever a vengeful government official wants to bring someone down all they have to do is investigate for a few minutes and figure out which is the most recent rule that was broken and poof that person’s a criminal.
But if you allow criminals to immigrate, give house arrest to assassins and such, never punish anyone for corruption and the rest of the world allows corrupt ex president’s to calmly live in Brussels and pay foreign agencies for social media attacks against political and judicial enemies… That’s what happens when you let the extreme left win (Ecuador)
I’m not sure how you made the jump from “removing rights” to “removing punishments.” Even the U.S. constitution has explicitly protected rights for the convicted and we definitely still have prisons.
I’m just saying it’s VERY real and happening in lots of South American countries that the left (communist) is making it too easy for gangs to explode and abuse jails as their private training camps, since those and other politicians are either blackmailed threatened or paid by narco groups
There are so many other problems at the root of stuff like this too.
First question is why do people actually turn to the gangs in the first place? Usually its because the government/society isn’t providing something those people need to survive, and the gang does. Either money or community, typically.
That is a very drastic slippery slope fallacy. You’re claiming that if convicted criminals have rights, then crime will take over and run the country. You are incorrectly conflating the preservation of rights with the removal of deterrents.
By the way, which South American countries are communist? If you are thinking of Cuba (which is not South American), then they actually use the criminal justice system to suppress rights, which is what this thread is claiming will happen if the rights of the convicted are removed.
This is why “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is a fallacy. They could invent a reason go get rid of anyone they don’t like because the law is convoluted on purpose.
I agree but it’s important to differentiate between accused criminals and convicted criminals, and what specific diminution of rights we’re talking about. Obviously jury-convicted violent criminals probably will suffer a harsher restriction on their rights than someone accused but not yet convicted of a minor misdemeanor. There will probably be a spectrum of restrictions on rights.
Are there people calling for all rights to be suspended upon indictment? Maybe on the fringes.
Cash bail is a suspension of rights for the poor upon arrest.
During the term of a sentence we suspend some rights and do not return them once someone has served their sentence.
If your nation has imprisoned enough people that allowing those prisoners to vote is a threat, you probably aren’t the good guys.
There are definitely additional levels of tyranny.
Some are are simply called HOA
Victims have rights too. People have a right to not be victimized by criminals.
You’re arguing a completely separate point.
But the long arm of the law can’t possibly be tyrannical! 🦖
Yeah sorry abusers should not be allowed to own guns.
I thought this was pretty clearly about free speech and the right to vote. Things that actually have the potential to make change.
The op is read as “should have some fundamental rights vs no rights” while you’re turning the conversation into “all rights vs no rights” unless you intended to share another more nuanced point.
Criminals typically have controls in place, and should, depending on the nature of the crime.
Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.
Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.
Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.
Which is why I refuse to call it ‘marijuana.’ It’s a word making it sound Spanish and therefore a threat from down south. It’s from Asia, not Latin America. The name, in English, makes no sense- unless you want to demonize it.
I didn’t actually know that but I suspected it, with indica being one of the two most familiar species.* It was actually a shower thought I had last night, just before I ultimately forgot to take an edible (or ultimately didn’t bother because tbqf these gummies are just revolting).
*I thought sativa might have indicated a south Asian origin but that is actually just the Latin for “cultivated”.
The plant originated in an area that is located in what we call Afghanistan. According to the Hindu faith, Shiva has to smoke some every day, so he didn’t get mad and destroy the universe
Actually the earliest lnown plant was around Tibet 2 million years ago.
Gotcha, will edit.
I think my colleague is Shiva
John Ehrlichman literally admitted it. https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.
If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.
Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.
Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.
Ref:
- Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
- Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt
I love how stereotypical Mexicans are portrayed as both lazy and hard working at the same time.
And through yellow lence
They also didn’t have highly processed drugs. I think the war on drugs is bad but this isn’t a good argument.
