It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An inmate who sued the prison superintendent after he claimed he injured his ankle while sliding into second base during a softball game.
An inmate who sued because the prison law library didn't contain 19th Century volumes of the Supreme Court Reporter.
An inmate who sued because the pieces of cake served in the prison cafeteria were too small.
Many “Rights” are granted the citizens of the United States, both constitutionally and those considered “Inalienable”
When one is considering abolishing those rights, the obvious questions that come to mind are
1. Which rights are being abolished?
2. Who determines number 1?
The Rights granted to us by the Constitution and subsequent amendments were not given to exception. That is to say, all citizens are to be granted these rights as a matter of course. This removes the obvious and potential disaster of human input and prejudice in the assigning of, or eradication of, rights in general or rights specific.
Fifth Amendment: Self Incrimination being part of the subject.
If the right against self incrimination were removed from any individual, they could then without prejudice, be forced to divulge any and/or all information they posses as it relates to a charge or allegation. This takes us into another complexity. That of how much force can be used to compel the testimony? Also, what individual or groups of individuals are going to be responsible for determining that amount of force that is to be used? How long before torture would become the rule instead of the exception?
Eighth Amendment: Specifically that prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
These very Rights that would be removed from an individual by my opponent are there to ensure, to guarantee, that this is the individual that perpetrated the crime in question. We lose that guarantee the moment we lose the rights we are discussing. The possibility for a mistaken conviction rises astronomically and innocent people would suffer.
As difficult as it is to accept, it is truly better that a hundred guilty perpetrators go free before we convict and sentence one innocent person.
This very idea of civilization, this freedom we all enjoy, demands of us that those individuals we deem unsavory, even despicable, are afforded the same rights as any other person. In point of fact, it is even more important that those Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles receive their full compliment of rights within the law. Even more than normal law abiding citizens. For to afford your average citizen these rights is easy, it is far more difficult when applied to criminals.
It takes true courage to face someone that has perpetrated and committed the crimes we are discussing; to face them, and ensure them that they will receive fair and equal treatment under the law. To let them know that we as a nation will not allow ourselves to be lowered to the same level they have retreated to in order to exact our justice. It is this very same courage that is displayed in defense attorneys. Perhaps the system has become somewhat subjugated with liberal concepts and the attorney’s confused understanding of their duties. For now we have defense attorneys that believe their entire goal is to win, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the client. That is a price we must pay for the continuance of our civilization, for the confidence in the survival of our souls.
The criminals who commit these acts choose to do so.
A panel, perhaps the Supreme Court should be the ones who determine which rights are to be abolished. Once these rules are determined, it will be common knowledge. "So it is written, so it is done". Then there would be no gray area. Neither with which rights are abolished, or to whom would be a candidate to have these rights taken away.
If there is a mandate which specifically states every point of the loss of rights, then prejudice and human error would not play a role. Again we are talking ONLY about the felons who commit these specific acts. I'm not advocating, or implying taking away the rights of my next door neighbor because it aggravates me that he never maintains his yard.
I'm not advocating the use of torture. We could make it simple. Much like the breathalyzer rules. Refuse to blow, then guilt is assumed.
Do much the same thing - refuse to answer the questions, then guilt is assumed. All under the observation and advice of lawyers of course.
The 5th - The criminal can't say "I take the 5th." Either Yes or no.
The 8th - The criminal would be under constant video surveillance with a feed to a 3rd party "whistle blower" committee. Torture comes into play, the world knows about it in minutes.
Are you saying that the BTK killer deserves more rights than my family does?
Some of those very things we do without are afforded to these criminals while they are doing "hard time". These criminals should have nothing.
Now here we must each define the phrase “Choose to do so” for ourselves.
This is necessary because the psychology of criminal conduct is anything but an exact science. The compulsions, drives and reasons any one commits such crimes are as varied as the individuals. “Choose to do so” is a blanket statement that fails to take into account those individuals that suffer from compulsive disorders and thus can “not” choose to “not” do a thing.
By removing their rights we are advocating, consciously or not, treating these people as animals while we still do not fully understand them. What does that make us my friend?
Being a Felon already carries with it certain loses as it were. One loses the ability to vote in most states. Certain employment opportunities are denied as well as specific civic positions after release. Prior to that of course they lose the singular right of freedom and certain amounts of privacy.
“No Gray area”, now that is problematic at best and fraught with disaster at the worst. There was a time in this country when it was thought that slavery was the white mans privilege and the black mans burden. There was no gray area there either. We grew up, and came to understand a better more enlightened way. Welcome the 13th Amendment and the beginning of enlightenment. Now are we to start the long slow decent back into a dark age and pick and choose who gets which rights?
And yet these regulations to remove the rights of certain individuals would be written by men, enforced by men and suffered by men. I submit to you that there is no way to completely remove the inherent fallibility of man. Guarantees are only as good as the men that make them, mandates only as sound as those that mandate. It is our own weaknesses that has brought us to even consider removing someone’s rights, are we to further compound this with action?
So the mere act of non-cooperation would equate quilt? This sounds eerily like the Salem Witch Trials. Perhaps more distinctly like the McCarthyism trials and subsequent near death of the Justice System perpetrated by mass paranoia.
You say “Criminal” and yet in your scenario, the person has yet to be convicted as indicated by your necessity to compel his testimony. This as much as anything proves my point. As all can see by reading your posts, you are an intelligent and thoughtful person; yet you have convicted the person in your own scenario even prior to his forced or cooperated confession. What would less intelligent, less thoughtful people do to achieve their goals?
What if the subject just does not speak? How to you propose to force him to, or would that also indicate guilt?
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to prevent exactly what you are proposing here. It is fair and equal to all involved; it has stood the test of time and any number of attacks. It remains one of the singularly most important documents ever written.
It has been said that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its criminals. That being said, I too do not advocate that criminals have the luxuries of life afforded to them that are not necessary for their well being. We must however, ensure that their basic needs are provided for. This includes the rights afforded them under the Constitution of the United States.
Sir, if they murder someone, rape someone, or commit a sexual act on an innocent child - they are animals, and should be treated as such. What does that make us? I for one would be proud to be called the ONE who removed someone like this from society.