At-least that's generally the case in civilised areas unless you're in the military.
It 'seems' like they get off lightly, maybe some do, but I wish there was some more thought put into statements like that.
Under the current system, which insists on imprisonment and rehabilitation, I'd say no - if we as a 'civilized' society entirely deny an offender rights then we are effectively placing them outside of society, giving up on them, so have to shoulder at least a portion of the blame if they give up on society. If the question were framed "should they have less rights until they re-earn them by whatever means" then I'd say yes however.
But...Isn't there always a but? If someone proves themselves to be so utterly irredeemable, commits crimes of such magnitude, that we will never allow them back into society - let's say a Fred West or a Peter Sutcliffe for example - then we should stop this maudlin, 'keep em locked up and comfortable' rubbish and give them the death penalty. Ditto with serious repeat offenders like say a rapist who commits another sexual crime after their release from prison.
Unfortunately, the current system is ridiculous though, it often seems as if the rapists and killers etc have more rights than the law abiding majority or the victims. Things need to swing the other way, so that anyone who commits serious crimes has less rights, has to re-earn them, and also so that society is protected. Being a part of a society entails responsibilities as well as rights - we certainly need to toughen up on those who want only rights.
So what's the happy in between?
Although I think it's good to give them as many rights as we can, they should be secondary to the rights of people who are playing the game. I mean, hearing of offenders being given the chance to offend again... something's just gone wrong when that happens.