Why do you think criminals lose their human rights?
And should they? It seems to me that a lot of people today think that criminals should lose their rights when they are in prison. For example: Why do people think that a rapist should be raped in prison, and if they are raped it is OK and no big deal? If someone is truelly against rape they should be against it for everyone. If we follow "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" then we will all be blind and toothless.
Please keep answers respecful. I want good, honest, non rude answers!
Answers:
Human rights are those basic standards which are needed for one to live with human dignity. Such things as right to life, property, religion and belief, the right to associate with whom we want, the right to love and marry whom we want (though some would argue otherwise), and the right to happiness and contentment.
The problem is: when someone knowingly and willingly takes these rights from another, murder specifically but any other heinous crime counts, do they in turn renounce their own human rights. Our justice system seems to be based on such an idea but with degrees and standards to make sure that punishment isn't overwhelming, inhumane, or extravegent. The jury and judge serve the purpose of making sure criminals get what the deserve, no more and no less. However, why is it that these punishments seem, especially to the victims and families, too leinient or too harsh. Why is it that some argue for blood, others for exact retribution (I hope he gets raped in prision often heard from many rape victims), and others, even in their grief, argue for death, to inflict the same pain they've experienced upon others?
I think, if people really believe criminals, especially rapists and murderers, renounce their rights at the moment of crime, then why do we allow them to languish in prisions, often with more priveleges and experiences than many non-crimnals? Why not, if they really have no rights, do we not allow torture? Why not do the most extreme punishments like cutting off arms, forcing rape, poking out eyes? Why not cut off eyelids and lay the criminal in the sun to experience burned eyes (as the Romans did I believe)? I
It's because, even if they have lost some human rights, they have not lost their humanness. They still experience pain, (hopefully) regret, anguish, anger, sadness, etc., and this is especially significant if the criminal has a history of violence, family abuse, and other hurtful things that may have molded him/her into a violent, unfeeling, unthinking person.
Other answerers wonder if the asker would believe the same if she were raped or murdered, and I find that disheartening, suggesting that once violence has been done you are morally allowed to then in turn be or demand violence. That is retribution/revenge and it only works in the movies and video games. If we truely want to be virtuous, moral people then we cannot change our standards just because a certain person has committed horrible crimes, that's morality based upon circumstance and consequence and thus morality has no objective standard...it is merely arbitrary and depends upon our perception of the situation.
Criminals need to be punished, because without policing and laws our country would be anarchy and chaos, but it is also anarchy and chaos if we allow the further violence and crime to continue. Though Slippery Slopes are fallacious reasoning, one can't help but wonder when and where will these differentiations between criminal and victim, and thus the line at which one loses human rights, occur and when someone truely innocent or tried without due process will suffer at the hands of, a so called, humane nation.
PS: to those people who say people renounce their human rights when they in turn take away the rights of others...how do we handle our own nation which denies certain people marriage, free speech, and free action? Not to mention, the millions of people over the course of history whom the nation has colonized, invaded, "helped," aided, or allied with?
PPS: Someone commented that they don't commit criminal acts because of fear of punishment, that's silly, one should not commit crime because crime is wrong. We can only be moral agents if we FREELY choose (without fear, or, in Clockwork's case, without government conditioning) and FREELY act morally. Acting from fear does not deserve moral praise.
Criminals don't care anything about human rights, why should you even talk about human rights for them? What if you got rape?
Well, since you havent been thru any of these things you really couldnt possibly understand. Rape deserves the death penalty as do many other crimes. Its just the ,"Blame soceighty left" that keeps people from getting their just deserts.
But to answer your question, I dont think people would want them to lose their human rights so much if the left hadnt given them more rights than the victims in the first place.
actually, there have been a lost of crackdowns recently, at least in my area, on violence in prison. the problem is that you have so many people with agressive tendancies and no where to vent it aside from thing that make them even stronger and more agressive like weight lifting. and with such a tight budget as so many prisons have, it's hard to get enough guards to keep everyone in the prison system safe.
if there was more of a focus on rehabilitation things would be much different, but at least for now prison serves more as a way to keep them out of society and out of the way until they're allowed out again, at which point there is a higher chance they'll go right back in, and the circle just keeps on doing.
While i do not think that anyone deserves being over-punished... It is really annoying when a family sues because their son, who was being put to death after serving at death row, took a minute longer than usual to go, claiming it was extreme punishment. If your son or daughter did something bad enough to get into death row, he is lucky enough that he is in the 'States, where he is safe from being tortured to death. Still, it is unfair for something bad to happen to a person in jail, because the person who commits it usually gets away with it, which doesnt really make his current home deserve the title of "correctional" facility does it?
Our justice system is not always just.
A more important question is should someone lose their human rights for a victimless crime?
I, especially in this case, think not.
But people do lose their human rights, even in the USA, for victimless crimes everyday.
But Saudi Arabia, a close supporter of the current administration, actually chops people's heads off in the street.
While I assure you some troll will come along for this question or another and indicate their love for the idea of police be-heading people in the streets, most Americans, amazingly enough even our politicians, aren't keen on street be-headings.
Touchy... touchy. subject.
It really all depends on the crime.
Should a pot dealer get the same circumstantial punishment as a child molester? I don't think so. Even tho a child molester is seperated from general population in prison. So you see he does have rights in prison. Because if he didn't, he would get mauled by the general population.
You have to take something away for punishment. You don't ground a child and let him do what he/she wants. You take things away.
I am not saying that our penal system is absolutly correct and fair to the imprisoned but you have to make people fear the punishment.
If i was not scared of going to jail for years and years, i would have already tried to rob, loot or be in an illigel raquet. But i am terrified of being caught and imprisoned. So i go to work everyday, piss and moan, just like everyone else, that has chosen to live by societies standards.
Not all criminals lose their human rights because it will really depend on the crime a person has comitted. Felonies are criminal offense but you have still with you the so-called human rights. Heinous crimes deserved no human rights because that's a capital offense not only to the country but to all the people residing in that country. Criminals are supposed to pay for their crimes committed. We cannot just allow this to happen otherwise there is no place safe to live.
Because they are taking away some-elses human rights who through no fault of their own are the victims of a crime.
The main thing here should be the victims human rights come first they did not have a choice.
If somebody hurt or raped my child or grandchild I would hope the rest of the perpetrator was spent in fear and I don't call that vengeance I call it justice a lot of these criminals would be better of in jail than facing their victims families.
What are you defining as human rights?
There are somethings that every person incarcerated should have, regardless of their particualr crime. A place to sleep, adequate health care for sickness/ disease ( NOT FOR SOME SICKO'S SEX CHANGE ) and a proper diet. They should be protected from violent acts perpetrated on them. PERIOD.
THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE: Free mail, free college, free HBO, etc, etc..
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: