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.
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.
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.
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.
You are literally describing my entire point. Limiting the rights of criminals is justified to some extent.
deleted by creator