Do you agree or disagree with the following statement (which is simply a thought experiment):
"Rights (human rights, right to reply, right to a phone call etc) are given to people via the law of the land. Therefore, when it has been proven that someone has broken the law of the land, they should lose those rights."
Or in other words, "no/reduced rights for criminals". What do you think? Agree or disagree?
2007-08-25 21:21:38 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A lot of people are mentioning "innocent until proven guilty". This is why I said "when it has been PROVEN that..."!
And as a side note "innocent until proven guilty" is not codified in English law at all! Of course that is how it works and is a side-effect. It's more of a figure of speech.
2007-08-26 14:47:40 · update #1
PS. I am British (and this is Yahoo! Answers UK AND IRELAND!). US-centric answers/answerers can go away please!
2007-08-26 14:49:32 · update #2
Society must responsibly devise limits. There are some acts which deserve life imprisonment and even death. It is those acts which require the loss of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.
However, until that point of death, a human-being remains a human-being and must be treated as such lest the caretaker himself becomes less than human, at the very least.
Simply stated: If a crook is to be released, it is better to have a human-being in our midst, than an animal with nothing more to lose. And - the worst we get away with treating others, the worse we ourselves become.
UPDATE:
Oh no you did not discriminate against "US centric" responders who are not British/UK!" There is absolutely no way for me to tell who, what, or where you are unless you tell me UP FRONT. And even then, I pay every month just as (I assume) you do. You have no more power over me than I have over you. You are nobody special and you can't tell ANYONE where to or where not to post. Especially anyone on the US side of Yahoo.
2007-08-25 21:43:27 · answer #1 · answered by Silent Gams 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a factor of innocent until proven guility, and also a right to avoid self-incrimination and a right to legal counsel and freedom from being coerced into giving a false confession.
Convictions should be accomplished according to the proper jurisprudence, due process, the Constitution and rules of law.
For example, "rape shield laws" are unconstitutional and in violation of due process, fair treatment and even violate the rights of jurors to be aware of all facts.
2007-08-25 21:27:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rights are not given by the law of the land. That is incorrect, and makes reading the rest unnecessary.
Re-read the Declaration of Independence, that should give you some insight as to where "rights" come from, and what relationship a government has to those rights.
You'll never understand the answer to your question if you don't understand this.
2007-08-25 21:37:19 · answer #3 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You've got a point, although some of what you say goes against common justice ie 'innocent until proven guilty' don't think Faulkner needs any help to override centuries of Engilsh law.
2007-08-25 21:31:45 · answer #4 · answered by proud walker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Every Right that vested upon a person to perform his legal act, has a corresponding Responsibility which he should perform, and an act or omission of his responsibility is a crime
Reduced rights of persons who where convicted for criminal acts are given to them as a result for their felonious act or omission
Picture this, a lawyer who failed to act according to his/her code of conduct is disbarred. It is just for the Supreme Court to disbar that lawyer since he did not act the way he shou8ld be
2007-08-25 21:46:48 · answer #5 · answered by Irish Grace 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You choose to do a crime, you are choosing to take the consequences of that crime. I think the punishment should fit the crime, however. Taking away a persons right to use a phone because they were speeding is not ok. Taking away a persons right to vote because they raped a person is perfectly alright by me though.
2007-08-25 22:02:27 · answer #6 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Rights under the Constitution are guaranteed.
If I miss a stop sign, jaywalk, or spit on the sidewalk,
am I criminal with no rights?
2007-08-25 21:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
as soon as you break the law you should lose your rights. plain and simple. what about the rights of the innocent people that were affected by the consequences of the aforementioned criminal?
hang 'em all.
2007-08-25 21:25:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Rights are inherited to humans, criminals or not. Breaking the law justifies punishment, not withdrawal of rights.
2007-08-25 21:26:42 · answer #9 · answered by ElephantHop 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I say reduced rights for criminals, more or less depending on the offense. this is where it gets complicated though..
2007-08-25 21:27:59 · answer #10 · answered by shroudedinnightmares 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋