First I would like to thank Chissler, and Majic for setting the stage for this debate. I would also like to acknowledge my admiration and respect for
my worthy opponent Semperfortis. I am looking forward to reading the views of a man who has "an inside look" to the criminal element that most of us
do not have.
It is my position that perpetrators of agregious crimes forfeit their rights upon committing said crime. By agregious, I am speaking of Murderers,
Rapists & Pedophiles. I am not speaking of a guy smoking a joint, or an elderly person on a fixed income shoplifting a necessity because they simply
can't afford it. I am speaking of particularly heinous criminals.
I will give examples of several high profile cases when presenting my position. It is my intention to provide a lucid, objective position as to why I
believe so strongly that these criminals deserve none of the rights which the general populace take for granted every day.
I start with the case of George David Edenfield, and his mother and father David & Peggy. George David, and his Father abducted, took turns sexually
molesting 6 year old Christopher Michael Barrios while Peggy watched. After repeatedly raping 6 year old Christopher, they murdered him, put his body
in a black trash bag, then dumped it along the side of a road. It is important to note that George David is a repeat offender of child molestation.
David had a prior for incest. This is a crime where I absolutely believe that the perpetrators lose their rights. I ask simply, why do they deserve
any more than a tiny, dark cell which is temperature controlled just enough so that it will barely stop freezing, or heat stroke? Just enough food to
stop starvation. Nothing else. No TV, no books, radios, phone calls, visitors. Nothing.
I also use as an example Joseph Smith. He was caught on a car wash surveillance tape abducting 11 year old Carlie Bruccia. After abducting her, he
sexually assaulted her, then murdered her leaving her body in a field. Again I ask, why should this man have any rights whatsoever. Yes he has been
convicted, and sentenced to death. He dared to cry during sentencing.
I could give example after example of these types of crimes. Another high profile criminal Ted Bundy made a mockery of the legal sytem. Posing as his
own lawyer, smirking, and in general putting on a floor show. Highly intelligent, he enjoyed himself, and hid behind his rights. Why let this charade
go on? It's insulting to every law abiding citizen.
One of the most barbaric monsters of all time Charles Ng also made a mockery out of the judicial system. He was his own counsel, and also hid behind
his rights. His antics were absurd, and caused too many taxpayer dollars to be spent.
Now there is ONE right that I believe these criminals do have, and that's to have a quick and speedy trial. I say the trials should absolutely be
immediate. I don't want to ever hear again "Well, Mr. Doe, it was several years ago, how can you be sure that you remember it exactly as it
happened?". Immediate trials. Everyone knows my views on capital punishment, but that is another subject entirely. If these convicts can't be
euthanized IMMEDIATELY after conviction, then the minimal incarceration cells I described should be home to these folks for the rest of their
As my opponent is quite wise, I am sure I will be questioned with "When will it stop? Where do we draw the line?" I will answer that question in
advance. If you murder. If you rape. If you commit acts of pedophilia. Do any of these things, and you know going in that your cards up. Not disimilar
to the laws which state if you commit a crime with a gun you're going to do time. Period. Felons know that if they commit a crime with a gun, what to
How many times have we heard of a criminal get off due to some loophole? An officer is having troubles at home, his kids have the flu, he's pulled
over several people today, most of whom made up one cockamamie story after another for their antics, he has a mountain of paperwork waiting for him
back at the station when the call comes in, and he now apprehends a murderer. The officer has more on his plate than he should, and he screws up the
reading of the Miranda rights. Guess what happens now? The perpetrator can get off on a technicality. Why? Because of his "rights".
Again I ask, why should someone who plans, then commits these agregious acts have the ability to hide behind their rights? I wish I had free
healthcare. I wish I could get a free education, free AC & heat, free meals, ability to workout for free, ability to sue the prison or the government
because something wasn't to my liking.
Here's 3 examples of lawsuits that prisoners filed against the prisons.
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.
Sorry, but if you want rights then don't commit murder. Don't rape someone. Don't committ crimes, especially those of a sexual nature against
I look forward to hearing your views Semperfortis. The floor is yours Sir.