The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Should those who destroy the lives of others have the same rights as law abiding citizens, or by thier own actions have they excluded themselves from the mainstream of the human rights system?
'Innocent until proven guilty'.
At-least that's generally the case in civilised areas unless you're in the military.
At-least that's generally the case in civilised areas unless you're in the military.
Of course they have rights, but the rights card is so often interpreted to mean they got off with some plane tickets to the Mauritius it's stupid. They killed someone, awful. But if we kill them for that, we're not responding in an adequate sense; we destroy the problem using methods we supposedly abhorr.
It 'seems' like they get off lightly, maybe some do, but I wish there was some more thought put into statements like that.
It 'seems' like they get off lightly, maybe some do, but I wish there was some more thought put into statements like that.
Hmm, very good question. Can anyones actions place them so beyond society that they are denied all rights?
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.
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.
It takes the biscuit when someone who's happy to violate the rights of others demands full rights for themselves. Then again, giving them no rights would be just silly, especially as we might convict someone innocent.
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.
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.
Should those who destroy the lives of others have the same rights as law abiding citizens, or by thier own actions have they excluded themselves from the mainstream of the human rights system?