NationStates Jolt Archive


Prisoner rights

Demo-Bobylon
09-08-2003, 19:20
This resolution protects prisoners worldwide, and aids their integration and rehabilitation back into society.

ARTICLE 1
The right to a fair trial

ARTICLE 2
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

ARTICLE 3
Access to a lawyer

ARTICLE 4
Access to a rehabilitation program, medical care and protection from public/other criminals.

ARTICLE 5
Right to jury trial

ARTICLE 6
Illegality of permanent holding without charge - maximum of 7 days holding.

ARTICLE 7
Application of usual human rights while imprisoned, with the exception of the right to reside where one chooses.

ARTICLE 8
Right to not be named before trial, and not named at all if under 16

ARTICLE 9
Offenders under 18 send to junior detention centre, death penalty cannot be applied

ARTICLE 10
These rights should be applied without discrimination.

This aims to provide basic rights for everyone, protecting those on trial.

This is now a proposal, but I still want to know what should be edited. Please comment below. To endorse it, go here. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=65)
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:21
That's putting the cart before the horse. Some of that is before you are found guilty of a crime before you go to prison.
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:22
Or you could just vote for my due process proposal :)
Demo-Bobylon
09-08-2003, 19:25
That's putting the cart before the horse. Some of that is before you are found guilty of a crime before you go to prison.

It monitors trials AND prisons.
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:30
What about after the trial? What about the punishments? Can we still beat the prisoners? Can we still subject them to slave labor?
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:32
How about "Prisoner's rights shall not exceed those of the average citizen"?
09-08-2003, 19:32
it says application of human rights and also right to rehabilitation.....;which one rpevails in Rehabilatation through (unpaid) Work programs?
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:34
And exactly what are these "rights"?
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:35
What if I say that due to their actions, they are no longer classified as human? (If they are human to begin)
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:35
it says application of human rights and also right to rehabilitation.....;which one rpevails in Rehabilatation through (unpaid) Work programs?

There's no human rights violation in rehabilitation through work.

The US 13th amendment says that no person shall be subjected to involuntary servitude except as a crime for which person shall be duly convicted.

Criminals have no inalienable human rights (life, liberty, property), they only have the rights we choose to give them. In other words, taking away the life (though I am against teh death penalty), liberty, or property of a criminal is not sufficient justification for revolution.
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:38
There's no human rights violation in rehabilitation through work.

The US 13th amendment says that no person shall be subjected to involuntary servitude except as a crime for which person shall be duly convicted.

Criminals have no inalienable human rights (life, liberty, property), they only have the rights we choose to give them. In other words, taking away the life (though I am against teh death penalty), liberty, or property of a criminal is not sufficient justification for revolution.

Who said anything about a "US 13th amendment"? Personally, I haven't seen on in the UN. What happens if the crime is littering? Can I not say that the punishment is litter removal? That is involutary servitude. Also, by the commission of the crime, they are volunteering for ANY servitude that fits the crime.
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:40
There's no human rights violation in rehabilitation through work.

The US 13th amendment says that no person shall be subjected to involuntary servitude except as a crime for which person shall be duly convicted.

Criminals have no inalienable human rights (life, liberty, property), they only have the rights we choose to give them. In other words, taking away the life (though I am against teh death penalty), liberty, or property of a criminal is not sufficient justification for revolution.

Who said anything about a "US 13th amendment"? Personally, I haven't seen on in the UN. What happens if the crime is littering? Can I not say that the punishment is litter removal? That is involutary servitude. Also, by the commission of the crime, they are volunteering for ANY servitude that fits the crime.

Littering shouldn't be a crime.

A crime should be where you directly harm somebody else. If you throw an apple at someone and knocks them unconcious, now that should be a crime. Littering is at worse a civil offense, it shouldn't be criminal.
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:41
Littering shouldn't be a crime.

A crime should be where you directly harm somebody else. If you throw an apple at someone and knocks them unconcious, now that should be a crime. Littering is at worse a civil offense, it shouldn't be criminal.

Littering is depriving someone of their land and/or property. Seems like a crime to me.
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:44
Littering shouldn't be a crime.

A crime should be where you directly harm somebody else. If you throw an apple at someone and knocks them unconcious, now that should be a crime. Littering is at worse a civil offense, it shouldn't be criminal.

Littering is depriving someone of their land and/or property. Seems like a crime to me.

If you litter on private property, you are guilty of violating that person's property rights. They can sue. It still isn't a criminal offense unless it does permanent damage. You aren't depriving them of it.

Littering on public property should be legal, since you are depriving no individual of life, liberty, or property.
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:50
Littering shouldn't be a crime.

A crime should be where you directly harm somebody else. If you throw an apple at someone and knocks them unconcious, now that should be a crime. Littering is at worse a civil offense, it shouldn't be criminal.

Littering is depriving someone of their land and/or property. Seems like a crime to me.

If you litter on private property, you are guilty of violating that person's property rights. They can sue. It still isn't a criminal offense unless it does permanent damage. You aren't depriving them of it.

Littering on public property should be legal, since you are depriving no individual of life, liberty, or property.

I seem problems with that. "Oh I don't want to pay for people to take my trash. I'll just dump it in the park." Then more people do it. Instead of having a park, you now have a landfill. :cry: My poor country can take that.

Another possibility is I take ALL the trash in my nation and dump it in your country.
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:53
Littering shouldn't be a crime.

A crime should be where you directly harm somebody else. If you throw an apple at someone and knocks them unconcious, now that should be a crime. Littering is at worse a civil offense, it shouldn't be criminal.

Littering is depriving someone of their land and/or property. Seems like a crime to me.

If you litter on private property, you are guilty of violating that person's property rights. They can sue. It still isn't a criminal offense unless it does permanent damage. You aren't depriving them of it.

Littering on public property should be legal, since you are depriving no individual of life, liberty, or property.

I seem problems with that. "Oh I don't want to pay for people to take my trash. I'll just dump it in the park." Then more people do it. Instead of having a park, you now have a landfill. :cry: My poor country can take that.

Another possibility is I take ALL the trash in my nation and dump it in your country.

Then I'll take all the Depleted Uranium Shells in my nation and dump it in your nation at high velocities :)
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 19:54
I'll just use my uranium
The Global Market
09-08-2003, 19:59
I'll just use my uranium

I'm in the game's top 100 uranium mining countries and top 300 arms producers even though my military is in the BOTTOM third ;).
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 20:01
We can all spend some vacation time in Demo-Bobylon's scenic jails. :D
09-08-2003, 21:01
I seem problems with that. "Oh I don't want to pay for people to take my trash. I'll just dump it in the park." Then more people do it. Instead of having a park, you now have a landfill. :cry: My poor country can take that.


You make the mistake of assuming that there are parks in a free nation that are not privately owned.
Oppressed Possums
09-08-2003, 21:18
That's the point.
Demo-Bobylon
10-08-2003, 16:43
This is going slightly off the point, so...
The question about working in rehabilitation is briefly answered in one of the articles (Article 7). This is a vague-ish statement, but it saves time. In this case, prisoners can work, cannot be FORCED to work (although it may reduce their time in prison) and, unless it is classified by the UN as "community service", they will not be paid under the minimum wage.
Oppressed Possums, my country has no prisons.
Oppressed Possums
10-08-2003, 16:57
If you have no prisons, then why should it matter?
10-08-2003, 17:00
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
Demo-Bobylon
10-08-2003, 17:15
Anyone actually going to debate the proposal?
Oppressed Possums
10-08-2003, 17:18
Okay, "prisoner rights" has little to do with prison. It seems more like leading up to prison. What about the rights after that?

If you have the same rights in prison as out of prison, then why doesn't everyone get arrested?
Demo-Bobylon
10-08-2003, 17:54
If you have the same rights in prison as out of prison, then why doesn't everyone get arrested?

? Because they haven't done anything wrong. Prisoners and those on trial are still human. I don't see your point - prison is
a) Rehabilitation
b) A deterrent.
Oppressed Possums
10-08-2003, 18:20
If you have the same rights in prison as out of prison, then why doesn't everyone get arrested?

? Because they haven't done anything wrong. Prisoners and those on trial are still human. I don't see your point - prison is
a) Rehabilitation
b) A deterrent.

How can you deter me if I work and slave just so I can buy a loaf of bread and I decide, y'know if I steal the loaf of bread and get arrested, they will give me a roof over my head and give me food. :lol: I can be happy. Maybe. If I get all the rights whether I'm in prison or not, then why not be in prison?
10-08-2003, 18:35
If you have the same rights in prison as out of prison, then why doesn't everyone get arrested?

? Because they haven't done anything wrong. Prisoners and those on trial are still human. I don't see your point - prison is
a) Rehabilitation
b) A deterrent.

No, it's a punishment.
Stephistan
11-08-2003, 05:18
This resolution protects prisoners worldwide, and aids their integration and rehabilitation back into society.

ARTICLE 1
The right to a fair trial

ARTICLE 2
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

ARTICLE 3
Access to a lawyer

ARTICLE 4
Access to a rehabilitation program and medical care

ARTICLE 5
Right to jury trial

ARTICLE 6
Illegality of permanent holding without charge

ARTICLE 7
Application of usual human rights while imprisoned

ARTICLE 8
Right to not be named before trial, and not named at all if under 16

ARTICLE 9
Offenders under 18 send to junior detention centre, death penalty cannot be applied

ARTICLE 10
These rights should be applied without discrimination.

This aims to provide basic rights for everyone, protecting those on trial.

This isn't a proposal yet, but I just wanted to know what should be edited, who would support it. Please comment below.

I voted yes in your poll, but I have two issues.

I think the death penalty should be done away with once and for all. The U.S. is the last civilized country in the free world to still use it, and it's wrong. It breaks the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and therefore violates the Constitution of the United States of America

Second, I disagree that a person should not be named if over 18 until proven guilty, it is the publics right to know. I do agree that under 16 they should never be named and records sealed once they turn 18.

Those are the only two things I have issue with.

Peace,
Stephanie.
11-08-2003, 05:51
I think the death penalty should be done away with once and for all. The U.S. is the last civilized country in the free world to still use it, and it's wrong. It breaks the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and therefore violates the Constitution of the United States of America

Nothing "cruel" about it...it is perfectly just and humane, and in fact morally imperative, to treat barbarians as barbarians.
Stephistan
11-08-2003, 06:19
I think the death penalty should be done away with once and for all. The U.S. is the last civilized country in the free world to still use it, and it's wrong. It breaks the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and therefore violates the Constitution of the United States of America

Nothing "cruel" about it...it is perfectly just and humane, and in fact morally imperative, to treat barbarians as barbarians.

I think I'm going to pass on this dance with you tonight Ituania ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.
11-08-2003, 06:24
And why is that, Madam?

Kurt Weber
Stephistan
11-08-2003, 06:34
And why is that, Madam?

Kurt Weber

I'm kind of tired. My son has been sick all day, which means he will have to stay home from camp tomorrow, I'm pregnant and feel sick, I have been sitting at this machine all day. My poor husband has got to be sick of my Nation States addiction by now. Have had at least 12 different debates already today. Should know enough to get off this damn machine.. and yet I'm still here. But in fairness my husband is still sitting at his debating politics with some one on live journal. Perhaps he accepts my addiction to N.S. because I accept his addiction to LJ. LOL.. I don't think you wanted this much information..lol but you did ask :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.
11-08-2003, 06:39
OK :)

Kurt Weber
11-08-2003, 07:54
A few claralications/objectionsThis resolution protects prisoners worldwide, and aids their integration and rehabilitation back into society.

ARTICLE 1
The right to a fair trial
I could easily say its fair for me to appoint all the jurors (and make sure they are biased :twisted: ) What elements, outside of privacy and jury should be addressed

ARTICLE 3
Access to a lawyer
5 secs, 2 mins? How long of access. Right to have counsel or representation would be more specific
ARTICLE 4
Access to a rehabilitation program and medical care
Some criminals are not rehabitable. I agree with making the presumption that they are (except for in obvious cases like pedophilia, now known to be an uncurable perversion). Also, how many times are they entitled (Alabama, of all places, instituted a wonderful drug rehabilation program that prevented many from returning to the system. They gave you two trys, but if you came in a third time you served hard time [note it was connected to other crimes, not purely drug charges like possession]) How about serial killers?

ARTICLE 6
Illegality of permanent holding without charge So I can detain them indefinetly as long as its temporary. Define a detention period, like stating that one can file a write of Habeus Corpus after such and such time.

ARTICLE 7
Application of usual human rights while imprisoned
Well prisoner forfeit many rights by committing crime, so what rights are they entitled to. Obviously not life in the case of certain capital offences. Obviously no right to communicate or move freely. A right to food? Clarify
ARTICLE 8
Right to not be named before trial, and not named at all if under 16 Nice idea, but not enforceable. Child court cases are leaked all the time, not to mention that the fact that some criminals are announced as suspects in order to catch them. (nice idea to end people making up minds before trial, but not practical)

ARTICLE 9
Offenders under 18 send to junior detention centre, death penalty cannot be applied If a 16 yr old rapes or kills or robs he is going to prison. I am sorry, but he knows full well what he was doing. One should take care with reformable criminals of this age, but there are some in this group that are going away for a long time
Demo-Bobylon
11-08-2003, 13:05
I voted yes in your poll, but I have two issues.

I think the death penalty should be done away with once and for all. The U.S. is the last civilized country in the free world to still use it, and it's wrong. It breaks the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause and therefore violates the Constitution of the United States of America

Second, I disagree that a person should not be named if over 18 until proven guilty, it is the publics right to know. I do agree that under 16 they should never be named and records sealed once they turn 18.

Those are the only two things I have issue with.

Peace,
Stephanie.

The death penalty is in violation of international human rights, so I believe it should be outlawed completely. However, there are lots of Americans used to the idea on NS who disagree with us. I tried to pass a proposal banning it, but it didn't get nearly enough endorsements.
Second, I think the person should not be named. People quickly form opinions, and the accused can be harassed even if found innocent.
Collaboration
11-08-2003, 14:42
I recommend Victim-Offender Remediation Programs. Where a criminal has harmed someone, a mediator helps them face each other (with supervision) and talk about it. The criminal admits guilt and works off his debt to the benefit of the victim. It saves jail expense and overcrowding. With a skilled mediator, it works well. Criminals who participate are less likely to become repeat offenders.
11-08-2003, 19:55
Yes, heaven forbid we should punish people who kill other people. Let's sit down and talk about it instead...

Kurt Weber
Demo-Bobylon
11-08-2003, 20:10
I recommend Victim-Offender Remediation Programs. Where a criminal has harmed someone, a mediator helps them face each other (with supervision) and talk about it. The criminal admits guilt and works off his debt to the benefit of the victim. It saves jail expense and overcrowding. With a skilled mediator, it works well. Criminals who participate are less likely to become repeat offenders.

Good idea. Worked in South Africa after apartheid, bvefore you snear, Ithuania. You obviously haven't heard of its successes
11-08-2003, 20:14
Whether or not it produces a desirable result is wrong. It is completely immoral to NOT punish criminals.
The Global Market
11-08-2003, 20:15
I'm in favor of an EXTREMELY limited application of the death penalty, i.e. only when the person in jail still poses in threat even in jail.

Prisoners should be put to mandatory work sentences instead.

The Constitution even supports that implicitly. In the 13th amendment (abolition of slavery), it says that no person shall be subjected to involuntary servitude, except for a crime for which that person has been duly convicted.

That way, the prisoners pay back their debt to society and it helps them reform. What are your thoughts on this Ithuania?
11-08-2003, 20:19
I don't think a "debt to society" or reform or rehabilitation is important. The only goal of a justice system should be to reward good (not by actually distributing prizes or anything of that nature, of course, but by leaving non-criminals free to live as they wish) and to punish evil. Rehabilitation, reform, etc. are irrelevant. If those are a secondary side-effect of punishment, all the better--but they are not primary goals. The primary goal is to ensure that the offender is punished.

If you do something bad, a miserable experience should follow--that's justice.

Kurt Weber
The Global Market
11-08-2003, 20:22
I don't think a "debt to society" or reform or rehabilitation is important. The only goal of a justice system should be to reward good (not by actually distributing prizes or anything of that nature, of course, but by leaving non-criminals free to live as they wish) and to punish evil. Rehabilitation, reform, etc. are irrelevant. If those are a secondary side-effect of punishment, all the better--but they are not primary goals. The primary goal is to ensure that the offender is punished.

If you do something bad, a miserable experience should follow--that's justice.

Kurt Weber

Okay I see your point, but I still think that work sentences would be more practical and beneficial to everyone involved. If criminals are forced into work sentences, they are still isolated from society. And forced labor I would say is a miserable experience, wouldn't you agree?
Oppressed Possums
11-08-2003, 20:28
Some welcome the opportunity to work. It's better than going insane. (In my opinion...)

It also limits their opportunity to plot evil things....
Demo-Bobylon
11-08-2003, 20:47
Whether or not it produces a desirable result is wrong. It is completely immoral to NOT punish criminals.

Actually, George Bernard Shaw would disagree with you. Punishment is useless if it does not deter or rehabilitate, as it is then revenge. Why add more suffering to the world? It makes sense to punish, until you think about it. Then you see what is actually right.
11-08-2003, 21:01
Then G.B. Shaw is wrong. Punishment is primary.
Demo-Bobylon
11-08-2003, 21:07
Then G.B. Shaw is wrong. Punishment is primary.

Taking into mind that the great writer is very much cleverer than you, I would ask you to reconsider. Don't be restricted by normal methods of thought. DARE TO BE DIFFERENT! Think about it. Why should we punish? If someone has rehabilitated, many people have been shocked and deterred from crime by his confession, should we still punish? What's the point?
11-08-2003, 21:34
Aside from the irrelevant issue of whether or not he really is cleverer than me, just because you happen to think he's a "great writer" doesn't mean he's right about everything.

Punishment of transgressions is morally imperative because it's just. Justice is essential for a free society.
11-08-2003, 21:42
Don't be restricted by normal methods of thought. DARE TO BE DIFFERENT!

Incidentally, I'm doing a better job of that than you are. You're the one that's letting George Bernard Shaw do all your thinking for you.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "don't be restricted by normal methods of thought". Are you saying I should abandon reason and instead go with what "feels good" rather than what is objectively and rationally right?
11-08-2003, 21:50
Not a problem.

Lacking correction facility, I passed an accord with my fellow country PQ Forge, that has gently accepted to rehabilitate and take care of our criminals.
Oppressed Possums
12-08-2003, 00:56
If we are to have a "Prisoner rights," then what is a "prison" and what is a "prisoner"?
The Global Market
12-08-2003, 01:03
Whether or not it produces a desirable result is wrong. It is completely immoral to NOT punish criminals.

I think mandatory labor is punishment ;).
Oppressed Possums
12-08-2003, 01:06
Whether or not it produces a desirable result is wrong. It is completely immoral to NOT punish criminals.

Does morality apply if the criminal violates morality?
Demo-Bobylon
12-08-2003, 14:44
Aside from the irrelevant issue of whether or not he really is cleverer than me, just because you happen to think he's a "great writer" doesn't mean he's right about everything.

Punishment of transgressions is morally imperative because it's just. Justice is essential for a free society.

No, it is not "just". Someone is forced into crime through an unfair system, and is punished by that system - that is not just. The "justice" you are describing is more like revenge. Crime has to be paid with rehabilitation and deterrence, not with more suffering. In whatever circumstances, creating unnecessary suffering is funamentally immoral.
The Global Market
12-08-2003, 14:48
Aside from the irrelevant issue of whether or not he really is cleverer than me, just because you happen to think he's a "great writer" doesn't mean he's right about everything.

Punishment of transgressions is morally imperative because it's just. Justice is essential for a free society.

No, it is not "just". Someone is forced into crime through an unfair system, and is punished by that system - that is not just. The "justice" you are describing is more like revenge. Crime has to be paid with rehabilitation and deterrence, not with more suffering. In whatever circumstances, creating unnecessary suffering is funamentally immoral.

Very few people are forced into crime, and most of those are mafia family members ;). Doesn't youir statement imply jail is immoral?
Demo-Bobylon
13-08-2003, 16:15
If prison is needed to protect the public, rehabilitate and deter, then it is necessary. I'm just saying that punishment should not be a reason for them, as punishment alone, for the sake of revenge, is immoral. IF it is NEEDED to deter/rehabilitate/protect, then it may be NEEDED.
Bereza
13-08-2003, 18:15
article 7 - the right to liberty should not be given to those in prison. duh. please clarify which "universal human rights" you mean.

article 8 - named when and to whom?

article 9 - if you shoot an old lady two days before your 18th birthday, you are just as guilty as if you'd done it 4 days later (at least, by Ber√ęzan laws). if you're a mass murderer, or guilty of any crime that would warrant the death penalty, your age is irrelevant after you're about 12.

other than that - sure. and thanks for not including a "no cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
13-08-2003, 21:37
Punishment is not "revenge", or "rehabilitation", or anything else. It is simply punishment. It is perfectly just that a miserable experience should be the consequence of a transgression.
Oppressed Possums
13-08-2003, 21:52
Punishment is not "revenge", or "rehabilitation", or anything else. It is simply punishment. It is perfectly just that a miserable experience should be the consequence of a transgression.

I think revenge is more effective and efficient.
Demo-Bobylon
14-08-2003, 13:10
Punishment is not "revenge", or "rehabilitation", or anything else. It is simply punishment. It is perfectly just that a miserable experience should be the consequence of a transgression.

Puishment as you have described it is revenge! How many times do I have to say this? Punishment for the sake of punishment is pointless and immoral.
Demo-Bobylon
14-08-2003, 13:46
Anyway, 1 day left - if you're interesting, you need to get voting!
14-08-2003, 20:44
You have yet to explain why it is unjust for a transgressor to have a miserable experience afterwards.

Punishment for punishment's sake is the only way to handle criminals--it is the only just way to run things.
14-08-2003, 21:08
How is it a just way to handle things? Why should a prisoner be treated and differently from an ordinary citizen?

If a member of your country was taken hostage by a rogue nation and brutually handled for the reason being s/he was FROM your country, would you not be angry at such actions? Or would you explain to the grieving family that their son/daughter is being hurt but its ok because it is "just" to punish others with punishment?

Now, that is a rather extreme case but it still serves to highlight the case. Any form of punishment for punihment is a very meglomaniac thing to do, it does not set a image for UN countries everywhere.
The Global Market
14-08-2003, 21:13
How is it a just way to handle things? Why should a prisoner be treated and differently from an ordinary citizen?

If a member of your country was taken hostage by a rogue nation and brutually handled for the reason being s/he was FROM your country, would you not be angry at such actions? Or would you explain to the grieving family that their son/daughter is being hurt but its ok because it is "just" to punish others with punishment?

Now, that is a rather extreme case but it still serves to highlight the case. Any form of punishment for punihment is a very meglomaniac thing to do, it does not set a image for UN countries everywhere.

I think there should be a balance. Criminals should be punished for doing an unjust thing (the miserable experience) but at the same time the chance that they might be innocent should preclude the use of excessively cruel punishment. The purpose of justice is after all, mainly to reward the good. In addition, rehabilitation and payin off their debt to society should be mixed in wiht punishment for punishment's sake, simply because it is well, more cost effective. The best thing to do with criminals I think is to put them to mandatory labor. That way, a lot of cost is saved, and they have less time plotting jailbreaks and/or revenge.
Oppressed Possums
14-08-2003, 21:16
What about convicted criminals cannot have rights above and beyond what their victims have?
The Global Market
14-08-2003, 21:20
What about convicted criminals cannot have rights above and beyond what their victims have?

Convicted criminals have no inalienable rights. They only have the rights we choose to give them. However, a conviction doesn't necessarily mean absoltue guilt, which is one of the main reasons I oppose the death penalty except when cases when the criminal is still a lethal threat in jail.

I think forced labor is the best thing to do with criminals.
Oppressed Possums
14-08-2003, 21:22
What about convicted criminals cannot have rights above and beyond what their victims have?

Convicted criminals have no inalienable rights. They only have the rights we choose to give them. However, a conviction doesn't necessarily mean absoltue guilt, which is one of the main reasons I oppose the death penalty except when cases when the criminal is still a lethal threat in jail.

I think forced labor is the best thing to do with criminals.

I guess you didn't read the thread. It specifically said "Application of usual human rights."
14-08-2003, 21:24
I think there should be a balance. Criminals should be punished for doing an unjust thing (the miserable experience) but at the same time the chance that they might be innocent should preclude the use of excessively cruel punishment. The purpose of justice is after all, mainly to reward the good. In addition, rehabilitation and payin off their debt to society should be mixed in wiht punishment for punishment's sake, simply because it is well, more cost effective. The best thing to do with criminals I think is to put them to mandatory labor. That way, a lot of cost is saved, and they have less time plotting jailbreaks and/or revenge.

Im my personnel opinion, the punishment of imprisonment is more then enough to cover any punishment needed(not a perfect sentence). The depriving of freedoms that we, the average citizen, takes for granted is a mental blow that covers any "punishment" you could inflict in a body through labour or otherwise.

And does a prison service not run activites and such? They are both educational and humane.
Demo-Bobylon
14-08-2003, 22:32
I think there should be a balance. Criminals should be punished for doing an unjust thing (the miserable experience) but at the same time the chance that they might be innocent should preclude the use of excessively cruel punishment.

"Excessive cruelty"? So you're "moderately" cruel to prisoners? How do you define "excessive"? Cruelty is wrong - for whoever. Full stop.

ALL cruelty springs from weakness.
The Global Market
14-08-2003, 22:39
I think there should be a balance. Criminals should be punished for doing an unjust thing (the miserable experience) but at the same time the chance that they might be innocent should preclude the use of excessively cruel punishment.

"Excessive cruelty"? So you're "moderately" cruel to prisoners? How do you define "excessive"? Cruelty is wrong - for whoever. Full stop.

ALL cruelty springs from weakness.

So we can't put criminals in jail? Isn't that cruelty?
Oppressed Possums
15-08-2003, 01:03
I think there should be a balance. Criminals should be punished for doing an unjust thing (the miserable experience) but at the same time the chance that they might be innocent should preclude the use of excessively cruel punishment.

"Excessive cruelty"? So you're "moderately" cruel to prisoners? How do you define "excessive"? Cruelty is wrong - for whoever. Full stop.

ALL cruelty springs from weakness.

So we can't put criminals in jail? Isn't that cruelty?

Living life is "cruel." Are we going to commit euthanasia and just start killing everyone to "put them out of their misery"?
Oppressed Possums
19-09-2003, 16:28
I think this applies to the POW resolution...