What rights should a 'criminal' be entitled to?

[Slytovhand]

Hey gangsters...(takes on a whole new meaning...)

Given some of the other debates on here, and almost the same as Pedersen's new one, I'll propose this, as it comes down to the basic issues being raised...

What rights do they have?

Do they have a right to life? If so, then no death penalty, but no Castle Doctrine either.

Do they have a right to be rehabilitated if they do a crime? If so, then they also have the right to have that chance ... again... can't do that when they're dead.

If the above apply, then how does that affect your rights?




I'm sort of for the 'whatever rights the criminal has violated, no longer apply to that criminal" (though I'm undecided as to how long that lasts for...). But.. that would also be something that the legal system has to determine!


Go for it

[daleduke17]

I believe criminals should have these rights:

- punishment to fit the crime (kill someone in cold blood - you get death, steal 50,000 dollars - pay victim 50,000 dollars)
- fair, unbiased and speedy trial
- a competent attorney

After the sentence is completed, they should have to report it on job applications (they already do) but it should be weighed into if they are hired (Do you really want a guy with four DUI convictions delivering pizzas or driving a bus?). Other than that, it should be completely voluntary. Even for sex offenders. I'm ok with them registering with the local police department, but they should not have to post signs in their yards (some states have, or have discussed that requirement as well).

[crazylegs]

Under UK law they have the same basic rights as you and I. The punishment of depriving them of their liberty (ie imprisonment) is the punishment, not denying them other rights as well.

[Lachrymose]

steal 50,000 dollars - pay victim 50,000 dollars)

Hmm..wouldn't that just end up being an interest free loan?

[anriana]

The same medical care they would have outside of prison, including abortion.

[BlackIronCrown]

What rights do they have?

Do they have a right to life? If so, then no death penalty, but no Castle Doctrine either.

Do they have a right to be rehabilitated if they do a crime? If so, then they also have the right to have that chance ... again... can't do that when they're dead.

In the USA, the prisoners have the following rights. All prisoners obtain the basic rights which are needed to survive, and sustain a reasonable way of life, despite their imprisonment.

- The right to not be punished cruelly or unusually.
- The right to due processes.
- The right to administrative appeals.
- The right to be notified of all charges against them.
- The right to receive a written statement explaining evidence used in reaching a disposition.
- The right to file a civil suit against another person.
- The right to medical treatment (both long and short term).
- The right to treatment that is both adequate and appropriate.
- The right to a hearing upon being relocated to the mental health facility.
- The right to food that would sustain an average person adequately.

Any of the following rights, given to prisoners, can be taken away for the purpose of maintaining security, protecting the prisoner, or controlling the prisoner's behavior:

- The right to access the parole process.
- The right to practice religion freely.
- The right to equal protection (fourteenth amendment).
- The right to personal property such as: cigarettes, stationary, a watch, cosmetics, and snack-food.
- The right to visitation.
- The right to bathe (for sanitation and health reasons).

The US Supreme Court has determined that most forms of execution are neither cruel nor unusual, given history and/or method. The USA does not have a "right to live"; we simply try to prevent citizens from being killed as much as possible. Thus, when it is determined that a crime warrants execution, it is not cruel and unusual to do so.

As for rehabilitiation, that depends mightily on what you CALL rehabilitation.

[Slytovhand]

Damn... I should have emphasised the SHOULD a bit more...

I was after what people on here would desire they have... in relation to other threads going at the moment...

But having background information is always good Thanks for that BIC and Anriana.

So... do you agree they should have all those rights?

[BlaqueKatt]

I believe criminals should have these rights:

- punishment to fit the crime (kill someone in cold blood - you get death, steal 50,000 dollars - pay victim 50,000 dollars)

that is not the punishment fitting the crime-that is revenge or retribution

and I'm assuming the exictuioner is killing in cold blood as well, or are they magicaly exemt or "above the law"

Even for sex offenders. I'm ok with them registering with the local police department

Read this article, the two men charged so far have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because a 13 year-old girl misrepresented herself as 19---her parents know she's doing this, do nothing to stop it(they know about her myspace page saying she 19 and divorced)-but they still prosecute-due to statutory rape laws boil down to-you did it you are guilty-the circumstances do not matter, your intent does not matter-YoU ARE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES(these men did not intend to break the law, the girl did-they are punished for wanting to date a girl who reresented herself as being their peer, she is continuing to entrap, and free to do so). However Chris hansen on "to catch a predator" has adults present themselves as children to catch people but for them it's "their intent". The laws are totally inconsistant.

[crazylegs]

Hmm..wouldn't that just end up being an interest free loan?

We have the proceeds of crime act, whereby the police can apply for an order through the courts that means that unless the criminal can prove that their property was lawfully gained it will be seized and sold with half the money going to the police and half to the state.

This is used for fraudsters, those from Organised Crime Groups and those who have amassed a lot of money through crime.

It is normally applied for upon/during conviction for one of those types of offences.

[Difdi]

We have the proceeds of crime act, whereby the police can apply for an order through the courts that means that unless the criminal can prove that their property was lawfully gained it will be seized and sold with half the money going to the police and half to the state.

There's some potential for abuse there. It puts the burden of proof on the defendant, for one thing. How many items do you own that you can prove you own legitimately?

I don't have receipts for my computer, I didn't keep the ones for the parts it's made out of. I got my television second hand as a gift. If I go out and (legally) pan some gold out of a stream, hammer it into disks, and use it to decorate my home, I don't have receipts for it, and were someone to demand I prove I didn't steal it or buy it with stolen money, I would not be able to do so.

If the police have an incentive to seize my property, then there will always be the chance someone will come up with a reason to do so. As an example, drug trafficking seizure laws allow for money that has been used in a drug deal to be seized by police...but nearly every dollar bill in the US has traces of cocaine on it. By the standards the law applies, there isn't any money in the country that can't be seized at will, save only that fresh from the mint.

[crazylegs]

There's some potential for abuse there. It puts the burden of proof on the defendant, for one thing. How many items do you own that you can prove you own legitimately?

I don't have receipts for my computer, I didn't keep the ones for the parts it's made out of. I got my television second hand as a gift.

Its not so much whether you can prove the legitimacy of the goods but whether you can prove the legtimacy of the money used to purchase said items. I'm sure you can prove how you got the money to pay for it, I'm sure you have pay slips and and bank accounts. If said crim has never had an honest job in their life they can't prove the money used to purchase said items is legitimate.

Normally criminals will have a semi legitimate cover however will be living well beyond their means with no visible way of supporting it, these are the people being targetted, not your drug addict who has no possesions anyway.