Criminal Rights

[ctogher]

:ranting: Ok! For those unaware, I live in South Africa, land of equal oppurtunity and liberality, (nw?). For some time now we have suffered under an injustice greater than any presented by the dreaded seperate development act. Crime.

 

Over the last few years, our justice system and politicos have been steadily providing greater and more focused rights to the criminal fraternity, 'cause, let's face it, they are only misunderstood.... :blink:

 

Last night, however, I was bowled over by a news story that on the face of it was so bizarre I would be forgiven for thinking it was a joke. A police officer was arrested, and is under investigation for wrongful death, for the shooting of a serial killer. Now hear me out. The officer is attacked, shot and critically wounded. He fires two warning shots in this time while alerting all and sundry that he is an officer of the law. At which point, he shoots and kills the "poor, misunderstand' criminal before the *censored* can shoot him again.

 

Why is he under investigation? Simple. The killer had more rights than he did! :!:

 

This was a pivotal moment for me. On investigation, a criminal may enter your home, stab you repeatedly and rape you wife without fear of being shot. Why? Because you cannot shoot a man with a knife. You cannot shoot him in the back. Even if threatened at gunpoint, IN YOUR HOME, you may only shoot to wound. Heaven help you if you accidentally kill the *censored*..... :bye:

 

So. My personal lien on this is that anyone commiting crime has selected to place themselves outside of society. In so doing have relenquished any rights awarded a citizen of said society. I vote None :D

[Switch]

If that's true, then that's really... just plain crazy. I agree they shouldn't be given that many rights (is the justice system completely retarded out there or something!? :blink:) but they should still be given some rights. They are still human, even if they are a mass rapist/murderer. You can't just treat them like animals, doesn't seem right to me. Even if they act a lot like em.

 

I say, throw em in jail to keep people safe from harm by them, but at least give them a few rights (so they're not treated brutally or whatever).

[Malchik]

Well the same general problem - leniency to criminals - has begun to be discussed in the UK following a high-profile case of a man who shot an intruder. I find myself undecided. I have been burgled and wonder what I would have done if I'd caught the burglers. I couldn't have shot them as I have no access to firearms but I might have used a knife or a paperweight as a cosh. Or I might have run away.

 

We must have the right to defend our property but society is advanced enough to have agreed that the death penalty is unlawful and therefore individuals cannot be placed in a position to carry out a sentence that even the courts could not.

 

Ban all firearms!

[Almelexia]

I think they should get punished for their crimes. If they not get punished for what they done if they steal for example they will not end it. The law nowdays is getting more and more lazy and the crimes is growing, as Malchik said just ban all fire weapons.

[Shakkara]

Well every human still has it's rights, no matter what they have done. Also, I blame society for creating a lot of murderers and rapists. Don't believe me? Then why are there a lot of murders in one nation, and almost none in others? Western society, and the American society in particular, is just plain sick, and it should be no surprise that people go harm eachother physically when they are harmed emotionally every day. People committing serious crimes deserve help and compassion as much as their victims.

[Darnoc]

Well, I know that such things happen as ctogher told it and it is sad. But you also must see the other side of the medal. After all those terrorist acts and the crime rate which rising all the people shout for more security. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Switzerland the police gets more and more rights. In the last years not the crime rate was rising in Switzerland but the police violence rate! Several people died this year because of brutal policemen. And you know what: They all got free, didn't have to pay anything or weren't put in jail. You will now say "A few deaths in a year? That's damn nothing!" But you must also see that Switzerland is a very little country and was always known for their exccellent police officers, who were nice and good educated. Hey, even I did live in those times when police officers were truly "your friend and aid"! But now more and more people are not afraid of foreigners (who were always prejudiced to be criminals) but of the police, mostly the younger people under 25 (above they are mostly afraid of us or of foreigners) are often victims of heavy police violence.

 

And about treating criminals: Yes, they are still humans. But they have crossed the line of their rights and the people must be secure of such people. Now what shall we do with those people? Kill them? First I must say that no living human has the right to kill another human! Live is the most precious thing existing and we certainly don't have the right to take the live of someone else. And when talking about killing someone who has killed someone else: You should kill a lot of politicians and industrials then, because of their decicions millions have died and not some poor wretch who did kill someone for some money, because he was hungry. And also executions don't help, you still have a high crime rate (most european countries have a lower crime rate than the USA). So killing is out of the question. But a kind of labour camp could be something for really heavy criminals. What should be their rights then? If we want to protect the law, we can't do this while using the same methods as the people we chase because they broke the law. So, using violence after the arresting is out of the question, only when it is really necessary (the criminal wants to break free). Every policeman/woman should be questioned and tested, if they are still probable of furfilling their duty without using violence or get emotional heated up. If any policeman/woman does cross the line, he or she should have to answer for their actions.

[Zmid]

My own personal view is really that it depends on the particular circumstances. If someone is undeniably and obviously flouting the law, as in the example provided by ctogher in the opening post, or the example provided by Malchik, then he should be given no rights to use the law to protect himself. He has chosen to break the law, to totally disregard it, so it is ludicrous for him to complain/sue when someone else breaks the law in order to stop him, but this lack of rights should only extend as far as efforts to subdue or stop him is concerned.

 

However, where there is doubt as to whether the person has actually committed a crime, he should have the right to be treated humanely and it should be that he is treated as a suspect rather than a criminal.

[Peregrine]

1) Criminals have exactly zero rights in the process of attempting to harm someone. As soon as they attack (note: I mean in a way that is a clear threat of serious harm) an innocent person, they forfiet everything, including the right to life. The victim has every right to stop them by any means necessary, including killing them.

 

2) But... once there is no immediate danger, they should be given the same rights as any other person. White Wolf got it exactly right, at that point, they are merely a suspect, not a criminal.

 

3) Once they have been found guilty in court, they lose rights depending on the type of crime. Meaning jail/fines/execution/etc are all justified, once guilt has been proven. I don't see any problem with the death penalty, as long as it is applied in a fair and even manner and only to those who are actually guilty of the death of another person (yeah, yeah, I can dream, can't I?). Of course I'd rather see someone suffer in a prison cell for the rest of their life instead of getting an easy escape into death. But ONLY what the court has decided is justified. Police abuse and stuff is completely wrong.

 

4) As for banning guns... that's completely insane. One, that ban would only apply to those who actually follow the law. Just look at drugs... they're illegal, but they get into the country anyway. The same would happen with guns... those who don't care about the law would get them. Or just find an alternate way of killing people... knives, baseball bats, whatever it takes.

And you have to admit, arming the victims is an excellent way of cutting crime. Lets say 50% of the population carries a gun and keeps one in the house. And lets say that in any crime, the victim and criminal each have a 50% chance of killing the other (just to simplify it). Even if not a single shot is fired, crime is going to drop. Any potential criminal knows that he has a 25% chance of dying. Break into four houses and that's the end. Then add in the fact that now the victims can defend themselves, and we're better off with our weapons.

 

We must have the right to defend our property but society is advanced enough to have agreed that the death penalty is unlawful and therefore individuals cannot be placed in a position to carry out a sentence that even the courts could not.

 

A nice statement, if only it were true. If only criminals would be happy with just taking property, and not their victims lives. Yes, it's unjustified to kill someone just to defend your property... but when your life is threatened, it is justified. Its not carrying out a sentence, its simple defense. Shooting a thief that had surrendered and dropped his weapon would be carrying out a sentence. Shooting someone that had broken into your house and is turning to shoot you is defending yourself.

 

So in simple terms... you go ahead and trust the police and the kindness of armed criminals to protect you. I'll take my right to weapons and keep an AK-47 by my bed.

[Shakkara]

Your rationale for allowing people to carry guns is incomplete. If people might have guns in their house, then the thief will have to come into your house armed, or else he doesn't stand much of a chance. Also, he is much more likely to attack people he encounters, because they might be armed, so they are a potential threat to him. Over here thiefs are almost always unarmed, the only exception being armed robbers that go after banks and petrol stations. They get the stuff they want (which is usually insured), and no-one gets hurt.

[Darnoc]

When you kill someone in selvedefense that's ok. But for execution, I can only say, what Gandalf said in FotR:

 

There are a lot people walking the earth who deserve to die and a lot are dying who deserve to live. Can you give it to them? So be not so fast at hand with a death sentence!

 

There are acctually a lot of people living who deserve to die. Only to mention some: George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Jiang Zemin, Yassir Arrafat, Ariel Sharon, Charles Taylor, José Eduardo dos Santos and many others. They all deserve to die because of their decisions many others died, sometimes even millions. First kill them, the greatest criminals of all, then you can bother about those little criminals like murderers, serial killers etc. Or, as Pink Floyd suggested in their song "The Fletcher Memorial Song", put them all into an isolated place, then we can finally reorder our world (meaning the great criminals).

 

But when we follow the advice and abolish every death penalty, we can try to find new solutions. The probably best one is try to exterminate the reasons for crimes: poverty (mostly) and sometimes boredom (often the case with young people). That leaves us with the crazyy guys. These guys we could probably put away somewhere, without having there blood on our hands (on an island? stasis field? long-term-sleep, so they would need only few amounts of nutrients?)