Head-2-Head: Murderers, Pedophiles, and Rapists Should Lose their Rights, page 1

Good post Lombozo.

My Rebuttal:

The criminals who commit these acts choose to do so.

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. These individuals are still considered “sane” and responsible for their actions, and so are tried in accordance with the law; yet do they deserve the eradication of their rights as fully as one that truly does stalk their victim? (One example of many differing psychological aspects of criminology) Again, this begs the question; under your system, who draws the line and where is it drawn?

This of course brings up the psychological differences in each individuals motive for committing the crime. As a scientifically advanced society, we are still light years away from understanding the compulsion to commit such heinous acts. 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?

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.

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? How much damage do we allow this time before we realize we have made a horrible mistake, how many must suffer before we understand it was a bad idea? This time.

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.

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?

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.

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.

The Breathalyzer rules effect and are only applicable to the “privilege” to operate a motor vehicle. Having nothing to do with rights, yet your point is understood. The question remains however, who determines if the breath test is as far as it goes? Your panel of men, who assigns these positions? In whose hands is placed the power to determine guilt or innocence? This is exactly what you’re doing. By granting this power to men, you place them in a position to, as individuals; decide who loses rights and who keeps them. The Constitution was written to specifically deny that to any one individual. This is most apparent in the separation of powers inherent within the Constitution and the limits placed on each branch.

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.

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?
As for your video surveillance, that is placing the life, the future of a citizen in the hands of technology. Also, who would determine the 3rd party? What power would they have?

Can you see the pattern developing here? No matter how you attempt to control it, the end result is the power of life and death placed in the hands of humans with few if any checks and balances. The Nazi’s tried that and it failed miserably. 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.

And it omits no one person.

Are you saying that the BTK killer deserves more rights than my family does?

NO, The same…

The point is not that it is important to the BTK killer, to use your example, it is important to us.

It is indefinably important to us as a society, far more than it is to the criminals.

“Freedom isn’t free.” I am sure you have heard this and recently in reference to the war in Iraq. It is also pertinent here and relevant to the debate. Freedom is not free; it requires constant vigilance and sacrifice on the part of all of us to sustain that freedom. One necessary element of that sacrifice is imparting rights and guarantees to those that have no respect for our values, our rights or our society.

If we ever fail to do so, we run the very real risk of becoming that which we are fighting. It is our responsibility to rise above that station and if we resort to dubious actions in order to enforce our rules and regulations, we are no better than the criminals we are trying to control.

Some of those very things we do without are afforded to these criminals while they are doing "hard time". These criminals should have nothing.

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.

Semper

It is with the utmost respect for my worthy opponent, and frankly a little bit of sadness that I post my closing statement. This debate is coming to a close much more quickly than I would have liked. Thank you Semperfortis. You have proven yourself to be a class act, and a true asset to ATS. I value your friendship.

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.

"Choose to do so". Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe that the definition of my statement is pretty clear. You are correct, my statement is a "blanket statement". If someone stalks, and hunts, or has a compulsive disorder is completely irrelevant to me. They are a danger to society, who committed an agregious act. When a grieving family is burying a loved one who was murdered, or when a 6 year old is emotionally scarred for life because he/she was raped by an adult, does it matter if the culprit was suffering from a compulsive disorder? In my book - NO. Simply NO.

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?

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.

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.

Personally, I shed no tear for these individuals who've lost these priveliges. I apologize, actually no I don't, but as the song says don't do the crime if you can't do the time. They've lost these priveliges due to their own actions.

“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?

Slavery? How is there any analogy whatsoever to this debate? Slavery was so wrong that I can't even put words to it. Back to the point.
"Slow decent back into the dark age and pick and choose who gets which rights"? As we've both already stated EVERY citizen of the US is given the same rights. Same for you. Same for me. Same for the guy who cut me off in traffic. We all have the same rights. We're not throwing darts at names on a wall to decide. Commit one of these heinous acts, and it's OVER for you. Pretty cut and dried.

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?

You're right. They would be written and enforced by men. Name one law that currently is in the books- ONE, that wasn't written by man, or enforced by man. I don't consider it a weakness to remove the rights of the types of criminals we're speaking of. Frankly in todays over the top PC society, I consider it a strength. The system is broken. It just is, and it needs to be fixed.

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.

Yes, as callous as it may sound, that is what I'm saying. Non cooperation would equate to guilt. If your innocent why would you not cooperate? If you have no skeletons, then there is no need to lie.
One thing that needs to be clarified. While I clearly advocate the loss of rights to these criminals, I am not saying to take away the trial by jury system. I've stated earlier that the system needs to be fixed, but it does need to remain.

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?

I will state once again, that a trial by jury system still needs to be in place. Semperfortis, I have to assume that you as much as anyone alive knows the flaws in the system. Does it need to be fixed. Yes. But that doesn't mean in any way whatsoever that it should be abandoned.

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.

Sir, I could not agree with you more when you state that it is one of the singularly most important documents ever written. You and I are not so very different. We both served proudly, knowing we might die defending this precious document. However there is a reason why we have amendments.

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.

"Basic needs" being the key words here. I've made it clear how basic I believe it should be. Society may be judged by the way it treats it's criminals. Personally if I had to choose between someone thinking that I'm a nice guy versus removing someone who is a menace to society, I would choose the latter every time.

In conclusion, I've laid out my arguments as to why I believe the rights of Murderers, Rapists, and Pedophiles should be removed. I've responded to every challenge that my wise opponent laid out.

The rights of the criminals who stalk you, and me, and our children should be taken away. Every day we read of another innocent victim being violated. Innocent people who go to work, do everything possible to provide for their loved ones get murdered, or raped by someone. A child who has a bandaid on his/her knee because he/she still doesn't have the knack for riding a bike yet gets sexually assaulted by someone.
These criminals deserve nothing.

Semperfortis, the floor is yours. Thank you Sir.