Criminals

[tmd]

This is my first post here, and it might take me a little bit to get back into a good writing groove.
-----

It starts with a simple question: Do you think criminals, people found guilty of crimes that violate another person's rights/liberties, lose their own by doing so?

Those in prison are deprived of liberty, aren't they?

Those on death row are deprived of live (which is more controversial than being imprisoned).

Most people agree that criminals lose their rights, but to an extent. Most people would say that it's cruel to torture a criminal.

It isn't too uncommon for prisoners to do work. The CSU school that I attend buys some items exclusively from prisoners. However, these people are forced to work. Isn't this slavery?

-----
Also contrast this to your beliefs on human respect. Do you think people deserve certain rights under normal circumstances?

-----

-So if you believe that criminals lose all of their rights, why? Are they owed no human rights?

-If you believe that criminals do not lose all of their rights, but lose some, where do you make that distinction? It is really difficult. Why do they deserve some rights, but not others?

[curiosityandthecat]

I've never believed criminals lose their liberty. When imprisoned, they simply lose their freedom of choice to move about as they please, as they are forced into a regimented existence (ironically less than the military). I'll clarify: I consider liberty to be the "condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will," while imprisonment simply removes the choice of location in which one can exercise that free will.

I do think criminals should be punished; otherwise, what is the point of a punitive system? Imprisonment isn't torture, nor is forced labor. It's punishment for breaking a rule decided upon by those who represent the society. Some people don't respond to simple commands; they need consequences.

[dodgecity]

tmd, interesting thoughts.

The problem here is that, in practical terms, there is not an option here. Even if we disregard the concept of punishment and deterrence, we simply cannot allow criminals to run free and further encroach others' rights.

I always agreed with Rousseau's idea of a social contract, and by breaking this contract, you volunteer certain rights. It is the contract and the contract alone that assures you rights as a citizen. So yes, I think the concept of inalienable rights is outdated, but it persists because it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy and comfortable.

[Jolly Sapper]

To strip someone of their rights should be a rare thing reserved for only the most serious and heinous of acts.  I would imagine that most prisoners are people who made a mistake, didn't know the law/rules, or are the victim of a shitty law.  Maybe I'm being too optimistic but they aren't animals and they shouldn't lose their all of their rights in a manner disproportionate to their crime.

Imprisonment shouldn't be seen so much as an elimination of the rights of the imprisoned but as a suspension of rights/liberties in an attempt to (hopefully) enforce to the prisoner that they should not violate other's rights.  This is, in reality, practically impossible to do.

There are the difference between civil (against an individual or small group) and criminal (against society at large) violations.  The justice and legislative system is far from perfect though, so we get things like horribly harsh sentencing people who are in possession of small amounts of pot to jail for years while letting a business man who lost 100,000's of people's retirement money get off with a few years of probation.  Then there are always those who are innocent but are still found guilty.

I'm not a huge fan of the way that the prison industry uses prisoners as sweat shop labor.  If they are working then they should at least get minimum wage that is deposited into a savings account that they will have access to when they are released.

A prisoner should have access to the basics.  Food, water, shelter and medical care.  If the prisoner is incarcerated in an attempt to reform them, then they need access to the means of reform.  Education, job training, and some effort to let them retain human dignity in an attempt to reduce repeat offences.

A prisoner who is deemed too risky to society should be removed from society.  Whether or not they are humane treatment and how much will need to be judged on a case by case basis.  It feel it must be remembered, however, that treatment of prisoners by a society is a good way of observing the principals that the people want to uphold.

Its also the duty of the citizenry to try to keep stupid or outdated or inapplicable laws to a minimum to reduce the amount of unnecessary prisoners.

[Tanker]

I believe that those who are guilty made a choice, a concious decision knowing that there would be harsh consequences. If they have commited a capitol crime such as murder they deprived that person of all the freedom and living they would have enjoyed and deserve to lose their own as a consiquence.

[AnnaM]

'Rights' is a highly misused words, a right is the contrary of a duty; if one person has a right the other has a duty to her.  Rights and duties are reciprocal and not related to liberty (more properly, liberties).  Liberties are simply our free action, anything which is not a liberty is a tort - something we are not allowed to do.

That being said, criminals do not lose their liberties by commiting torts, rather they are held accountable for their tort.  I support organically developed jurisprudence of communities, but I do not respect legislation.  So long as the person is a voluntary member of a community, he has no basis to complain if he is taken to task for his tortious actions.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I don't think anybody "chooses" to commit heinous crimes if they are not emotionally stunted, or if they are not in dire straits. And both emotional immaturity and dire straits are things to be corrected--not punished.

[Wraitchel]

I don't think anybody "chooses" to commit heinous crimes if they are not emotionally stunted, or if they are not in dire straits. And both emotional immaturity and dire straits are things to be corrected--not punished.

And that is a whole 'nother kettle of fish there, Wechtlein. I don't think that a happy, well balanced, well brought up individual should feel much need to commit crime. However, I've been around long enough to see how easily some people, who have no predisposing factors, turn to crime. Maybe they're bored. Maybe they're greedy. Maybe they're convinced that they have some innate right to take what they want in life. I have personally known people who have committed crimes for exactly these reasons.

I agree with the social contract theory. If you break the laws of your community, you lose your right to be in that community, insofar as the community deems appropriate. I am absolutely against the death penalty, though. I hate it that being a part of my community means that I support the death penalty with my tax dollars and my silence.

I also think that imprisonment is a fairly primitive way to deal with people who break the social contract. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better solution for the real world. I do wish that more was done to help convicts turn around and make better choices. I think prisons are very unlikely places to engender a positive change of heart.

[thirteen31]

Interesting topic. To go back and answer the question of the first post,

Most people agree that criminals lose their rights, but to an extent. Most people would say that it's cruel to torture a criminal.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Does this apply to a criminal? Article 7 states: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." In effect, a criminal doesn't make one any less human (Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Those on death row are deprived of live (which is more controversial than being imprisoned).

I am a strong activist in human rights, if you choose to be pro-active about this, here is a link to Amnesty International about the UN pushing to abolish the death penalty. It states "...When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, eight countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Sixty years later, as of December 2008, the number stands at 137.

"More than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty and the numbers continue to grow..."

[AnnaM]

I don't think anybody "chooses" to commit heinous crimes if they are not emotionally stunted, or if they are not in dire straits. And both emotional immaturity and dire straits are things to be corrected--not punished.

It may come as a surprise, but some of us care more about results - and restitution - than intentions and excuses.  Everyone has an 'excuse' for everything, nobody had any metaphysical 'freedom' in anything they've done, and I don't see why some vague 'environmental influence' muddle makes a damn difference.  I don't care if he's a 'bad guy' or not, if you break into my house I'll shoot him.

[Whitney]

I was going to say that they haven't had their rights taken away anymore than a child that is forced to go to school.  However, when typing it out I realized that wasn't a good comparison since society has very obviously decided that the rights of a child are very much different from an adult.

So, yes, their rights have been taken away in a manner that is differnent from how we treat other groups of people.  However, the only right that is really taken away (with the exception of death row) is their right to freedom.  

If you look at this from a social contract point of view (and I'm speaking in terms of those who really should be in jail; not just the pot heads).  Criminals have broken the social contract.  I'd actually be fine with giving them the option of banishment.  However, since we now live in a global society there really isn't a place to banish them to; no one else wants them.  So, jail is our form of banishment.  It's not a perfect solution but we certainly can't let people roam around the streets if they don't want to play the social contract game.

A lot of people are really concerned about punishment and justice; I just don't want the bad people screwing things up for the rest of us.