Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
They should have some like speech, but a lot of others should be removed.
Because they have been removed from Society due to their actions and behaviours, i think they should forfeit some of the rights that everyone else has, such as voting. Freedom of speech and their basic human rights should be observed because in the end, we want them to come out rehabilitated and useful members of society and they won't do that if we treat them as animals with no rights.
Basic human rights sounds good.
Rights are things that should never be taken away while privileges can and sometimes should be. Perhaps this is a good time to be introspective and ask yourself what privileges you wouldn't take away, even from criminals. Then you'll have a better handle on what you think really are rights. Just my 2 cents of course, but a good thought experiment and a helpful way to keep yourself honest about what you really think are inalienable rights.
Just curious to know why you would give "rights" to someone who would kill, rape, rob, burglarize, or torture you for no reason at all but just to have some fun?
It is my opinion that once convicted, a criminal should loose all rights guaranteed the rest of us under the Constitution if nothing else but for the reason that criminals just don't care about our rights.
Perhaps if prisons were a punishment instead of an all expenses paid vacation, maybe – just maybe – there would be less repeat offenders.
When you want to give rights to criminals, keep the child predators in mind . . .
Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)
The thing with that is that a crime does not change their citizenship. They still have rights under the Constitution (right to fair and speedy trial, right to bail, etc.). We can't just take away their rights, because they're still human beings, and they're still Americans.
That way tyranny lies.
Andrew,
I suspect a lot of ex-cons would rather lose a whole parcel of "rights," such as speech, assembly, religion, press, or voting, than to lose their "privilege" to drive.
The would probaly want to hang on to their rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, however, espeically if they get arrested while execrcising their privileges.
What part of "Once convicted" do you not understand? What part of "Criminals just do not care about our rights" do you not understand?
Maybe if we give the convicted criminal a little taste of what he gives his victims, he just might not want to do it again . . . . . . maybe.
But that does not change the fact of his citizenship. If you are American (which I believe you've stated you are) then you know that the US has a Constitution. Under that Constitution, we are required to give even criminals certain rights.
If we do not follow through with what the Constitution mandates, I firmly believe that it will not stop there. It'll keep going and going, and it won't be just the criminals who don't have their rights.
US Citizenship has actually very little to do with who is supposed to get American jurisprudence when arrested and detained by our authorities for criminal acts within our jurisdiction. The only exceptions are 1) POWs, who are to be treated under military code of justice and 2) diplomats with immunity status, who are to be referred to their country of origin, if at all, but who can be revoked and removed from the country for egregious behavior.
There are specific violations, like immigration status determinations, which sometimes receive different due process methods than regular criminal infractions (see: Sheriff Joe in Arizona). I'm not sure why they should be treated any differently, but it happens. Otherwise, it's pretty much irrelevant where you come from. The same applies in most foreign jurisdictions (for example the American kid who got caned in Singapore).
Convictions are not final. They are routinely overturned by new evidence or even mere procedural errors in the prosecution and investigation of their crimes. "Once convicted" is therefore a poor dividing line upon which to base someone's possession of human rights as detailed under the Constitution.
The restriction of their basic liberties, such as the freedom of movement within the general population or rights of privacy while under state supervision, and to hold certain elected offices or bare arms upon their release from prison, do seem entirely reasonable upon the suspicious natures of our accusations and their convictions. But we have little interest in suspending their freedoms of speech, conscience, interests, thoughts, so long as they do not take up active harmful intentions and demonstrate real action against others (or take part in contributing potentially harmful behaviors like substance abuse contingent on their release or probational status). Likewise we have little interest in suspending basic human decency in the form of providing due process, trials, and the right not to be abused and tortured while in our custody.
Speech is a given right. We won't cut out their tongues. I think they should have some rights, not all, but some.