The publics right to know is more important than ones righ to privacy!?

Question

I am doing a dedate for school, and I need to do a survey. Would you rather know about what some one has done such as: murder, rape, as commited any major crime or even has some kind of major uncurable desease that is contageous, or would you rather let that person have there privacy.
also this will be the same for you. Meaning if you do any crime or mabey even have AIDs should you have the right to privacy or should the public have the right to know

Answer 1

There is a difference between criminal activities and medical disorders. Criminals lose their rights to privacy as far as I am concerned.

Answer 2

First Of All,you "safe People"are Not That Safe,People Perform Crimes Because They Know They Will Be In Trouble With Authorities,Its Called "Ridiculeing Them",Security Cameras Dont Help Because Most Of The Time,They Dont Even Catch The Criminal,Police Catch Criminals,Not Cameras,I Want My Right To Privacy,And So Do Millions Of Other People,

Answer 3

I remember debating this topic in the Minnesota State Debate Semi-Finals.

Both play into the social contract. The affirmative would argue that security replaces liberty. The most improtant way to address the problem is to look to the way the resolution is specifically phrased, then seek to generalize it. Go on the attack. Get your history books and look at the 4th amendment prior to the Berger and Warren Court, as well as the dissenting opinions in important cases of the Berger and Warren Courts. That will give you the best ammo to attack the concepts of privacy as a "right".

In the negative, you just need to hammer down on the arguement of liberty requires limitations on the majority, not limitations on the minority. Locke, George Mason, Jefferson, and Hobbs would all be worthwhile for you to read, as well as some of the more modern judicial opinions like Roe vs Wade. Look to emotional appeals against paranoia of powers of state, and prey upon people's fears of facism.

Hope this helps.

As far as my personal opinions go, if you are a crook and the written punishment is jail time, we do not have the right to punish you after the fact by placing a scarlet letter on crooks. If we want such measures taken, then let us make a scarlet letter law. We are a government of the people and let the people decide,,,,,not some unelected jerks in robes.

Liberty requires patience of the majority but also responsibility of the individual. If an individual acts without responsibility to their liberty and to our nation, then they do not benefit from the recipricoal patience of the majority.

Answer 4

When you commit a crime especially the ones you have listed in your question.......you should have NO rights! Plus all of that is public record either way. Maybe if the victims and the general public started to have more rights than the criminals people would think longer before committing such acts. Crime MUST have consequences!

Answer 5

Wow! Great question. As a parent I want to know when some deviant has strolled into my neighborhood
so I can protect my child. If that person has a
disease that can be transmitted but not cured then
I also want to know. Sometimes the right to privacy
must take a back seat to the protection of the
community. Sadly this means that public awareness
can also bring public shunning. Someday we will be
able to correct these 'flaws' and cure these terrible diseases so there won't be a need to protect people from each other.

Answer 6

Some records are public already. Marriage and divorce records are available IF you know the correct county & date to search. Criminal records are somewhat available to employers but only with the applicants signature to do so. Medical records are extremely secret, as are all banking, credit & tax records are.

MY personal issue is this- because of how the law percieves a married couple as ONE entity, how is it fair that either individual spouse is legally allowed to hide ILLEGAL tranactions under this same privacy law. If HE is charged with money laundering one day, HOW can she prove she had NO IDEA of his financial crime? Marrieds pass money thru each other all the time.

If HE has health insurance listed as husband to his EX-WIFE & new wife sees the ins card, WHY is this FRAUD still protected as a private matter between him & the-wife? New wife has no legal protection. Complaining to authorities did nothing. New wife is presumed to lying 'cause she's ANGRY. Hell yes- who would not be angry??

And AIDS? Why shouldn't we ALL be safe from VD from our partners? Aren't laws made to protect the innocent?

Answer 7

Only them members of the public likely to be harmed should have the right to know. For instance, women have the right to know that a rapist lives nearby. Health care workers have the right to know that their patient has Aids.

I don't think I have the right to know details of another persons life when those details are not required for me to protect myself in some fashion. Also, as a tax payer I would not want to foot the bill of making all of that information public.

Answer 8

The public has no intrinsic right to know anything about other people. The rights of privacy are implied in the US constitution and have been recognized and set forth numerous times with many rationals or explanations for the fact they are not explicitly mentioned. So, assuming arguendo, that there exists a right of privacy, I sugggest the following for consideration in deciding its limits and applicability:

If a person becomes involved with something as in an application for a rental, job, loan, insurance coverage or something, then that person voluntarily surrenders certain minimum rights of privacy commensurate with the nature of the intended realtionship.

So too does a person convicted of a crime, voluntarily surrender certain rights if they agree to accept parole instead of serving a sentence out etc. But if a convicted felon serves his time and is let go after paying his debt to society, he keeps his rights to privacy and need not be subjected to involuntary public disclosures of his personal information greater than non-felons.

An AIDS victim is also different from a criminal. He or she did not agree to get aids or apply for it. So his or her privacy rights should be protected to a greater degree if possible without endangering the public.

However, if the care he or she receives is financed by the public, as with taxe funds, then the public has a right to insist that he or she give up certain privacy rights for the good of the public in return so that the disease is not spread. This would probably impact close to 100% of the Aids sufferers as few have the resources for the expensive treatment. But theoretically, if a person contracted the disease and paid for all his care, it should remain a private matter strictly between him or her and the physicians treating for it.

So in both cases, criminal and AIDS, the actual cost to the public by the person whose rights are challenged , and if they apply for a benefit or a relationship or to obtain tax-based services from the public, can rightfully and logically and justly be used as an important factor to decide the questions that arise without defeating the basic inherent right of each person to have certain things absolutely private in ordinary circumstances.
(A law abiding tax-taying citizen is rewarded for not costing society the medical costs or the prison and court costs of getting AIDS or breaking laws. This reward is an undisturbed right to personal privacy. )

The rights of those who are convicted of crimes or those who are tragically required to throw themselves upon the mercy of the public for medical treatments are necessarily less protected.

Also anyone applying for a job or rental or loan or government program or benefit, must also give up some rights to obtain the benefit sought from others, provided that those rights are reasonably restricted to what is actually necessary for the circumstance or situation.

For example: When a person joins the military they cannot refuse to have an examination and testing to determine their fitness for duty, nor refuse to allow this information to be given to others who have a legitimate need for it. They have voluntarily surrendered certain rights to obtain the benefits of the relationship of service.

The loss of privacy that occurs when any of these types of relationships arise or events occur, should be considered just another cost ot the person that is unavoidable. With AIDS you get very sick and that is a tragedy. The loss of privacy because you are too poor to buy a cure is also part of that tragedy. It is not an arbitrary and intrusive governmental invasion of your privacy rights for the wrong reasons. That would be wrong.

Every constitutional right has limits and each is subjected to certain tests of applicability in every situation. The privacy rights of individuals is great but not absolute and must give way to more paramount considerations on occasion.
EXAMPLE: You have a strong right of freedom of expression but cannot be allowed to falsely cry out "Fire" in a crowded theatre. If the express sacrosanct right of freedom of speech can have limits, how much more so should the implied rights of privacy of ( the so-called "right to privacy" ) of individuals be limited for the public good?

So each type of situation should be judged upon its own merits and the totality of the circumstances, and the rights of individuals guaranteed by the constitution (and perhaps mandated by a an implied basic sense of decency and respect), but balanced against the needs of the state to protect the survival and health and rights and quality of life of the entire society and the government itself.