should we as a society have a duty of care to murderers rapists child abusers etc?

Question

have they forfeited their rights when the commit thes henious cimes against our society

Answer 1

We should make sure that they are disposed of properly and permanently. We should reintroduce capital punishment for these crimes where the victims are under 16 years of age.

Answer 2

If anyone joins a club or society they agree to abide by the rules and regulations of those bodies.

Any member breaking the rules will normally forfeit all their rights of membership and be excluded from the club or society. In the case of the Freemasons they would be 'blackballed'.

Similarly, any member of a civilised society who transgresses the rights of another member should automatically forfeit all their rights within that society.

Murderers, child abusers, violent criminals and those who burgle and thieve should lose their rights since they have taken away the rights of another individual(s).

The death penalty should be reinstated (some killers have been paroled and then murder again) and for those criminals sent to prison a harsh regime of hard labour and basic sustenance should be mandatory. All recreational perks should be withdrawn.

To give a murderer a 'life' sentence which actually means he/she may be released after serving 5 or 6 years is a travesty of justice. The only people receiving a life sentence are the family, relatives and close friends of the deceased victim.

Signing up to the European Bill of Human Rights was a serious error made by Tony Blair. The Government of the United Kingdom should be free to pass all the legislation required which directly affects the nationals of this country.

We should withdraw from this European Human Rights legislation. What it has become is a Charter for Criminals who appear to be better protected by it than the victims of crime.

The prisons are full, less than 25% of crimes are detected and brought to the courts and unfortunately, Crime Does Pay.

Answer 3

No, punishing the criminal will not bring the victim back (if murdered). I'm glad we have capitol punishment here (U.S.) but it isn't used enough! We have serial killers that sit on death row dragging out the appeal process for years! I say, allow one appeal and then if it doesn't work, kill them! Do you have any idea how much money is spent keeping these criminals alive? Pedophiles should be executed, there is no hope of "helping" them. There are many families that are homeless and living in poverty, while our government spends millions to keep these criminals alive, with three meals a day, shelter, weight equipment, full libraries and more. And when they have "served their sentence", they get out and start over, while the victims they've wronged have to live the rest of their lives in fear, emotionally/physically scarred, perhaps caring for their loved one that is in a comatose state, disabled for life or dead. The suffering continues, but not for the criminal. I don't care if they find god in prison or not. I've never been a victim of a crime, however, even I can see that spending money that is needed for good people on those that do not deserve to breathe is a waste and unethical.

Answer 4

Of course they forfeit their rights, as do all criminals. There is a loophole about criminals being injured on someone's property (for instance a burglar tripping on a loose paving slab and being able to sue for damages) - but I believe this is being closed. All criminals forfeit their right to freedom, so they are locked up. The problem comes when you say how many further rights should they lose - should they be executed, or left to rot in prison? The reason many criminals get such short sentances or get let out early is because there are simply too many of them and not enough prison spaces. Either the prison system needs to be reformed so that petty criminals get punished in a different way (I'm thinking backbreaking hard labour, in addition to cushy community service) freeing up space for hardened criminals who need to be kept away from people, or things will continue as they are.

Answer 5

Here's my list of criminals that I believe should be given the death penalty: 1. Murderers 2. Rapists 3. Child abusers 4. Anyone who tortures someone (I don't know the legal name for this) 5. Kidnappers 6. Terrorists 7. Anyone in possession of child porn

Answer 6

I believe they forfeit their rights. No one can possibly believe there is an excuse for the rape and murder of a two year child, it is utterly disturbing for me as a parent of a young girl, to think these monsters get a second chance, which is more than their victims get.
I am not a huge fan of America's politics, but they have the right idea with the death penalty. These people should be wiped from this planet, not lobbed in a prison together to fuel their sick fantasies. I can't express how much anger I feel over this subject.

Answer 7

We as a society have an OBLIGATION to protect the most innocent, defensless, helpless among us, our children, NOT those that would do them harm. I am in the USA and believe me, and this is a problem here also with too many laws and judges protecting the 'rights' of these sick, perverted pedophiles. We have several cases here where they were let off, or given a few months in jail. It is unbelievable. They can NEVER be rehabilitated. There is no defense for them, we need to get rid of them. Why isn't there a bigger outcry over this? This needs to be a top priority everywhere.

Answer 8

If I was one of the parents of Jessica or Holly, the children murdered by Ian Huntley, I would want to exact revenge upon him in equal measure for killing my child. Since I would be committing murder if I did, I look to the authorities to do so. Consequently the death penalty is the only just answer BUT there must be no doubts as to guilt.

Answer 9

No. Taking away / abusing another's human rights does not give anyone else the right to take away / abuse the abuser's rights! We *can not* lower ourselves to the same level as those we so blatantly despise! We can not do what is so blatantly wrong, and why ahould we? - 'cause they did it first? No, that only works in kiddy-court I'm afraid....

And of course this is all assuming we can know with absolute certainty beyond doubt that the person who's rights we are denying is the person who committed the atrocity. - What if we end up abusing (and it would be abusing!) a poor innocent! Also, the closest we get to having no duty of care is the death-penalty - and states in America where they have this, crimes such as rape and murder are actualy more frequent!

We cannot allow abuse to become legal, no matter what the crime... if we do, then it stops being justice and starts being hate/revenge/abuse.

Speaking as a victim of child abuse and rape-in-a-relationship, it would not make me feel better to know that if I had reported it then that man would be abused so! And also, it would not make me feel better if he had no rights - all I want to know, is that they are locked up and kept far away from me where they can never touch me again.

Answer 10

if we decide to bang them up, then i'm afraid the answer is yes. we arent monsters. while we bang them up, we have a duty of care, even if its only 3 meals a day, and the right to worship without fear of prejudice or harrasment.

however; even if we decided it were right to reintroduce the death penalty for these heinous crimes against humanity and the person, we still have a duty to the person as a human being. he knows he's for the drop, and so do we, but thats no reason to treat him like saddam..that was horrific.

assassinations and executions are state sanctioned murder. there are rules. soon to be dropped from a great height johnny is going to die. do we need to psychologically torture him as well? i think not. that makes us, here in England, no better than them half baked iraqi security forces....

society and civilisation is judged on many levels, how we kill folks is one of them. look at americas history of administering capital punishement.. 30 years on death row, thats inhumane. at least saddam didnt have to wait too long...

we need to be seen to be consistent

Answer 11

They forfeit their rights to live in free society. If their crime is bad enough we have the death penalty (which means they forfeit their right to life). If not, we have prisons and jails. If they are sex offenders, they forfeit their right to privacy and have to register and notify the government anytime they move. If they are felons, they have to go through a process to be able to get the right to vote back. They also can't legally get a handgun (they forfeit their second amendment rights). They also to some degree forfeit the right to the "pursuit of happiness" because they must declare their crimes (even misdemeanors) on job applications as well.
So, yes...they have forfeited their rights as well they should! Those rights were taken away for a reason. Namely to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

As far as your duty question, I would say that we do have at least some duty to violent offenders. Their crimes have already been committed. The victims have already been harmed. Killing them or torturing them won't bring anyone back or fix the trauma that goes along with child abuse or sexual abuse. At best it just makes people happy or satisfied that they get to inflict the same kind of pain on the criminal that was inflicted upon their loved one to achieve some sort of sense of "justice." I think that places people on a tenuous moral ground because you start acting like the criminal. Most people justify this we dehumanization ("well they aren't humans, they are animals...thus it is ok to do whatever want."), yet I think that can be a remarkable oversimplification in a lot of areas. The psychology, economics, and sociology of crime is NOT a simple black and white area of study. At what point would the system just become a legalized vigilante if we had no burden of care? At what point to we become an angry mob with a noose and a tree? Is that really what justice is about? I tend to think that it isn't. I think that justice is about making things right (or as right as they can be) while recognizing that nothing is going to bring the victim back. I don't think that giving someone a ticket off of this planet via execution is the best way to do that.

I think that the first obligation of any government is to protect it's citizens from foreign and domestic threats. That means that the FIRST concern is to keep innocent people safe. If that means that an offender forfeits rights, then so be it. I honestly believe that some people don't deserve a "second chance" at living in society. I value my freedom, so frankly I think sentencing someone to live in prison is a worse punishment than death. I think that is why we have life sentences and the death penalty to begin with, right? The point of punishment is to act as a deterrent, to keep innocent people safe, and to hopefully rehabilitate. Even if a person is sentenced to spend the rest of their life in jail...should we just write them off? Even if they basically acted like animals...should we let them stay like that? Nothing fixes certain crimes. Maybe those people that have gone so far astray could learn some humanity, compassion, etc that they have missed. Wouldn't becoming a decent person be the worst punishment of all for a criminal? At that point, they really have to live with the moral weight of what they have done. I think that is worse then simply killing them or tossing them in North Korea style jails. I think that society has at least a minimal obligation of care (in all but the most extreme cases) due to the fact that society plays a role in how people are socialized. Attitudes, beliefs, culture, etc all shape how we think and act in our public and private lives. I'm not saying that "society is to blame" for every nutbag or crook out there. I don't think that society is blameless in any case either. Some sort of middle ground is what I tend to believe on that question. At the end of the day, everyone is responsible for their own actions no matter HOW bad of a hand was dealt to them. So they must pay the price. However, when we lose a member of a society because they were the victim of a crime...we lose two people. We also lose the criminal who made the bad choice who is a HUMAN being even if we don't think of them like that. It is easy to forget that based on how anmalistic some criminals are. They were born, though. They werne't BORN serial killers or rapists. They became those things. That is everyone's loss (in terms of wasted potential if nothing else) whether you think of it in those terms of not. Thus, I think providing at least a minimal level of care while punishing AND rehabilitating (whenever possible) is the duty of a society since people aren't made or born in a vacuum outside of society's influence. In some cases, serious mental help is needed for some of the criminals in our country and that should be provided if possible as well. Unlike our president (who had a thing for executing the mentally retarded in Texas) I don't think that everyone should be sent straight to the gallows. There are special circumstances even in capital crimes (like mental retardation and severe mental illness) that I think should be looked at in greater detail as well.

Keep in mind, I'm not claiming to have all (or any) of the answers. I think this is a very serious sociological/philosophical question that is wide open for debate and discussion on both sides.
Hopefully you got something out of this huge post.

-E