Poll: Do criminals and terrorists deserve human rights?

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Should criminals and terrorists lose their human rights?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1

    Should criminals and terrorists lose their human rights?

    When people commit a crime or an act of terrorism should they automatically be deprived of human rights? For example; the right not to be deported to a country which is known to engage in torture, or the right to a family life which means their jail sentence is suspended, etc.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    284
    As many times as death row inmates have been exonerated decades after their trial by new evidence?

    Oh sure it sounds good but it's a knee jerk reaction to something that isn't a problem and designed to make people feel good. It sounds fine and all until you stop and realize the system is far from perfect and mistakes happen every damn day.

    And once you get the process started where does it end? Ultimately wouldn't the removal of human rights mean we can start the wholesale execution and slaughter of anyone convicted for even the most minor of offenses? If not then what would stop them if the convicts have no human rights? Animal shelters will kill pets they deem "unadoptable" for even the most minor of reasons and they're well within their power to gas every non-human on their property. How would this proposal be any different? People are always talking about jails being overcrowded and whatnot, and how better to decrowd them than start killing off the inmates?

    Granted that's a bit of an extreme position but it's possible. Let's say we don't move to killing but instead focus more on the loss of human rights. Under this proposal doesn't a person lose any hope of parole or exoneration once they're initially convicted? Wouldn't this do away with the checks and balances system and render the higher courts null and void? Then what would stop government from pursuing felony charges against protestors and having them prosecuted into the ground and locked away indefinitely without review or oversight?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Flower Mound, TX (In the basement)
    Posts
    85
    What's or should I say, why the difference in criminal and terrorist? Are they not the same?
    "If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist.....
    ....you'll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    What's or should I say, why the difference in criminal and terrorist? Are they not the same?
    They don't even bear a passing similarity to each other, outside of their activities being illegal. Well jaywalking is illegal but it's sure not terrorist activity.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tabbi View Post
    They don't even bear a passing similarity to each other, outside of their activities being illegal. Well jaywalking is illegal but it's sure not terrorist activity.
    At the same time, who determines who or what a terrorist is? Since the passing of the Patriot Act, there are well over a million people on the terrorist watch list. So writing an anti-political blog and jaywalking almost puts you in the same boat. Part of the question is concerned with exactly who is doing the labelling of individuals as criminals and terrorists and why.
    when man tried to understand nature, theism was born
    when man tried to understand God, atheism was born

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tabbi View Post
    As many times as death row inmates have been exonerated decades after their trial by new evidence?

    Oh sure it sounds good but it's a knee jerk reaction to something that isn't a problem and designed to make people feel good. It sounds fine and all until you stop and realize the system is far from perfect and mistakes happen every damn day.

    And once you get the process started where does it end? Ultimately wouldn't the removal of human rights mean we can start the wholesale execution and slaughter of anyone convicted for even the most minor of offenses? If not then what would stop them if the convicts have no human rights? Animal shelters will kill pets they deem "unadoptable" for even the most minor of reasons and they're well within their power to gas every non-human on their property. How would this proposal be any different? People are always talking about jails being overcrowded and whatnot, and how better to decrowd them than start killing off the inmates?

    Granted that's a bit of an extreme position but it's possible. Let's say we don't move to killing but instead focus more on the loss of human rights. Under this proposal doesn't a person lose any hope of parole or exoneration once they're initially convicted? Wouldn't this do away with the checks and balances system and render the higher courts null and void? Then what would stop government from pursuing felony charges against protestors and having them prosecuted into the ground and locked away indefinitely without review or oversight?
    Exactly. To everyone who said yes to this - you are fools. Your white collar crimes are also included. Everyone is a criminal and there's alot of corruption. There's a paradox here because with 100% of people being criminals of one sort or another, there wouldn't be anybody left with rights to take away rights of others.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    No, not 100% of people are criminal. A regulation doesn't make something wrong.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    No, not 100% of people are criminal. A regulation doesn't make something wrong.
    So then what percentage of people do you estimate to NEVER have committed a crime? Our entire government does it daily.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Real View Post
    So then what percentage of people do you estimate to NEVER have committed a crime? Our entire government does it daily.
    I haven't even by the demanding standard of never voting for a political candidate more likely to violate rights. I think it could be upwards of 30% in the united states, more in dictator ships and such.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    They don't deserve any rights, they're criminals and terrorists who are nothing but evil no matter how you look at it, and should be severely interrogated for information then executed. As long as they are guilty for certain.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    They don't deserve any rights, they're criminals and terrorists who are nothing but evil no matter how you look at it, and should be severely interrogated for information then executed. As long as they are guilty for certain.
    As has been pointed out by others in various threads guilt cannot be determined with any degree of certainty due to changes in technology and science and it's understanding. There are those who have sat on death row that were later exonerated through the current understanding of DNA and forensics. Such exoneration would not be possible if those found guilty were denied their rights upon conviction as they would not be able to appeal their convictions.
    If one cannot have an argument without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then they have lost the argument from their first post.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    They don't deserve any rights, they're criminals and terrorists who are nothing but evil no matter how you look at it, and should be severely interrogated for information then executed. As long as they are guilty for certain.
    Tell us more of your principles Locke.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    KY.USA
    Posts
    29
    No they should not lose their human right,for the simple fact they are human beings first. And criminals and terrorists second, this country have a history of torture itself . My Opinion!
    A mistake made by many people with great convictions is that they will let nothing stand in the way of their views,not even kindness.
    " Bryant H.McGill "

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    North Oaks, Minnesota, United States of America
    Posts
    5
    It's not a well formed question. A criminal can be a juvenile that shoplifted something cheap while a terrorist is criminal scum.

    Depending on the crime, criminals should have some of their civil rights stripped, like the right to vote.

    Unfortunately, the nation has seen that being forgiving and / or pretending that terrorism don't exist, or is on the run, simply doesn't work. Terrorists should be made examples of, once found guilty. I watched thousands of Americans die on 911 (And four more on 911.2), it's time that we see some terrorists die, televised executions of the worst kind would be good. Even if the Islamic fundamentalists are so crazed and still want Jihad, which they do and will until the west no longer exists, at least the terrorists will know they too will die horrid deaths when we catch them and they can live the rest of their lives with that horrible knowledge.
    Anonymous,

    "Profanity (or name calling) is the last refuge of the truly ignorant."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •