It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should they have rights?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I was following the threads that ElevatedOne has been posting regarding the Amber Alerts, and first I have to say good job elevated. I admire your conviction to helping as much as you can.


That being said, I have to ask. A t what point does a criminal lose his/her rights? In my opinion the moment someone does that to a child, they have abandoned human status and have no rights. As I've made it clear many times, I believe in the death penalty. I do not believe in coddling this criminal scum in any way whatsoever. Prison overpopulation? Hmmm, I think the answer is simple - kill these wastes of skin and get it over with. Why do they have rights?




posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
A person loses their right to privacy when a judge issues a search warrant or a warrant for someone's arrest; to do this, the judge requires proof that this person may possibly be wanted for a crime.

However, if a person is convicted of a crime in court, then they lose many rights -- including the right to travel freely, be secure in persons & papers, assemble with others, and even vote. However, they retain the rights to life and humane treatment at all times (unless they're the special case of being on Death Row, in which case even the life part gets revoked at the end).

There is nothing unconstitutional about this; the U.S. Constitution says that a person's rights can only be removed through "due process" (through a legal trial that is fair & open, with a jury of one's peers; but once convicted of a crime, all rights except the one to humane treatment are on the table to be taken away)...



new topics
 
0

log in

join