Criminals, why should they have rights?`

whiteonion

Why should criminals have the right to health care, rent allowance, the dole and so fort?

What is the logic behind this?
Someone can you please tell me why they should get anything when they spend their time harassing and intimidating people who live in their areas?

If we take away incentives from people to behave like this we will have less crime.

If being a criminal means you're most likely to die homeless on the street it would make a life of crime less appealing.

Am I the only voice of reason around here?

AlmightyCushion

If they are convicted criminals then surely they'd be in jail.

fedor.2.

They should all be locked up

Saila

[/troll]

...

whiteonion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If they are convicted criminals then surely they'd be in jail.

In jail they have right to health care and meals. This is silly.

whiteonion

Saila wrote: »

[/troll]

...

So I'm trolling because I think we should not be lenient against criminals?
In many parts of the world they are not lenient against criminals and they do very well.

Saila

whiteonion wrote: »

In jail they have right to health care and meals. This is silly.

they should just blast them with piss shouldnt they

Chris P. Bacon

whiteonion wrote: »

In jail they have right to health care and meals. This is silly.

So we should starve them?

ScumLord

whiteonion wrote: »

If being a criminal means you're most likely to die homeless on the street it would make a life of crime less appealing.

It doesn't, as long as there's money to be made in the short term long term isn't even considered.

whiteonion

Richie Cranium wrote: »

So we should starve them?

I see no reason not to.

fedor.2.

Richie Cranium wrote: »

So we should starve them?

You may be on to something there

Chris P. Bacon

whiteonion wrote: »

I see no reason not to.

So someone who didnt pay a bill and is sent to jail and then labelled a criminal should be starved to death for it?

barbarians

whiteonion wrote: »

If being a criminal means you're most likely to die homeless on the street it would make a life of crime less appealing.

Many criminals face dying like this before they commit any crime anyway.

More importantly, what if a criminal is rehabilitated and comes out of prison a new person, intent on making something of their life only then to be faced with a life of no rights.

Where do they go after that ?

whiteonion

Richie Cranium wrote: »

So someone who didnt pay a bill and is sent to jail and then labelled a criminal should be starved to death for it?

Their own fault. Not paying a bill is like stealing in a shop.
For petty offenses there is no need for jail time, just whippings etc.

ScumLord

barbarians wrote: »

Many criminals face dying like this before they commit any crime anyway.

More importantly, what if a criminal us rehabitated and comes out of prison a new person, intent on making something of their life only then to be faced with a life of no rights.

Where do they go after that ?

Crime.

Captain_Generic

Just round them up and stick them on an island, Australia didn't turn out so bad

Chris P. Bacon

whiteonion wrote: »

Their own fault. Not paying a bill is like stealing in a shop.
For petty offenses there is no need for jail time, just whippings etc.

Cool whippings?

major bill

Depends on what the crime is.

whiteonion

ElaElaElano wrote: »

The right to health care and meals is silly? So if a prisoner falls ill, let them die? And starve them all until they die anyway?

To actually end up in prison in this country you'd have to do something really bad, so starving them is what they would deserve.

barbarians

whiteonion wrote: »

I see no reason not to.

So if I don't pay my t.v. license fee and I go to to prison for it I deserve to be starved to death for this trivial crime ?

If I don't deserve to starve to death but others do for their crimes where do you draw the line OP ? When is one crime a crime too many or when is one crime enough to get a slow, painful death penalty?

EverEvolving

barbarians wrote: »

Many criminals face dying like this before they commit any crime anyway.

Surely it takes commiting crime to become a criminal no?

landsleaving

whiteonion wrote: »

Why should criminals have the right to health care, rent allowance, the dole and so fort?

What is the logic behind this?
Someone can you please tell me why they should get anything when they spend their time harassing and intimidating people who live in their areas?

If we take away incentives from people to behave like this we will have less crime.

If being a criminal means you're most likely to die homeless on the street it would make a life of crime less appealing.

Am I do only voice of reason around here?

The incentive to commit crime is hardly rent allowance and such, unless it's incentive to steal enough to survive because they don't get enough. If you're likely to die on the street, you're more likely to commit an offense in order to keep yourself alive. If anything, the meagre social provisions for people born into positions where crime is normal or appealing, are incentive for them to attempt a normal life.

But if it makes you feel any better, then yes 'you do only voice of reason around here'

Chris P. Bacon

whiteonion wrote: »

To actually end up in prison in this country you'd have to do something really bad, so starving them is what they would deserve.

Last year a fella was sent to jail for leaving an empty box beside a recycling bin,id hardly call that bad would you?

landsleaving

Richie Cranium wrote: »

Last year a fella was sent to jail for leaving an empty box beside a recycling bin,id hardly call that bad would you?

Sometimes the punishment needs to match the crime.

He should have been given a box.

ScumLord

whiteonion wrote: »

To actually end up in prison in this country you'd have to do something really bad,

Not really, it seems the worse you are the easier it is to stay out of prison.

goose2005

I think we should kill absolutely everyone, without exception. The last human left will be chained to a time bomb to ensure that he doesn't chicken out. It's the only way to teach us a lesson, Joe.

whiteonion

ScumLord wrote: »

Not really, it seems the worse you are the easier it is to stay out of prison.

That is because society is irrational, if we did it my way we would not have these problems.

barbarians

EverEvolving wrote: »

Surely it takes commiting crime to become a criminal no?

What I'm saying is many future criminals turn to crime to survive. Without crime they would die in squalid conditions. Society needs to reform to allow everyone a fair chance or people from disadvantaged backgrounds will never get a chance and start with petty theft then gradually moves up the ladder.

RichieC

whiteonion wrote: »

Am I the only voice of reason around here?

No, and quite a ways away also.

landsleaving

You need to be faster on the ninja edits son!

Ectoplasm

whiteonion wrote: »

Why should criminals have the right to health care, rent allowance, the dole and so fort?

What is the logic behind this?
Someone can you please tell me why they should get anything when they spend their time harassing and intimidating people who live in their areas?

Presumably if they are living in a community they have served their sentance for their crime or have not actually been convicted. If the former, they have paid their debt, if the latter they are not technically a criminal i.e. guilty of crime.

whiteonion wrote: »

If we take away incentives from people to behave like this we will have less crime.

Health care, rent allowance and the dole are not 'incentives'.

whiteonion wrote: »

If being a criminal means you're most likely to die homeless on the street it would make a life of crime less appealing.

Surely being likely to die homeless on the street makes a life of crime more likely.

whiteonion wrote: »

Am I the only voice of reason around here?

If this is reason, I kind of hope so.

Finally, to answer your question in the title - criminals, why do they have rights? Well, to be honest, because to deny them any rights is to become, as a society, criminal ourselves.

whiteonion

With sufficiently harsh punishment crime would be a problem of the past. People would be too afraid to overstep the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

RichieC

whiteonion wrote: »

With sufficiently harsh punishment crime would be a problem of the past. People would be too afraid to overstep the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

As the death penalty has so eloquently proved in the US.. :rolleyes:

EverEvolving

barbarians wrote: »

What I'm saying is many future criminals turn to crime to survive. Without crime they would die in squalid conditions. Society needs to reform to allow everyone a fair chance or people from disadvantaged backgrounds will never get a chance and start with petty theft then gradually moves up the ladder.

Gottcha, and agree, just didn't quite get your previous post.

OP seriously, just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean they don't have the right to basic human rights.

Logical Fallacy

whiteonion wrote: »

With sufficiently harsh punishment crime would be a problem of the past. People would be too afraid to overstep the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Okay, name me one country that has harsh punishments and zero crime.

whiteonion

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Okay, name me one country that has harsh punishments and zero crime.

I don't know any countries with ZERO crime, but Singapore springs to mind... their rates of crime are very low. I know they have caned a few tourists who where caught for vandalism.

Human rights groups were crying out loud about it but I think harsh punishment is a small "price" to pay for social stability and harmony.

Dudess

I don't think prisoners have the right to freedom, or to luxuries/extras - but I do think they have the right not to be beaten/starved/degraded. The state should lead by example.

ScumLord

whiteonion wrote: »

With sufficiently harsh punishment crime would be a problem of the past. People would be too afraid to overstep the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.

Doesn't ever work that way. Iran tried cutting the heads of heroin addicts it didn't work their numbers kept rising. Brought in a rehabilitation program and that did actually bring down heroin addict numbers because it provided a way to a new life.

RichieC

ScumLord wrote: »

Doesn't ever work that way. Iran tried cutting the heads of heroin addicts it didn't work their numbers kept rising. Brought in a rehabilitation program and that did actually bring down heroin addict numbers because it provided a way to a new life.

It's not about improving society.. it's about satiating your hatred for the lower classes.

whiteonion

I never once mentioned class in my arguments, obviously I would not want punish people because they belong to a certain class in society.

Logical Fallacy

whiteonion wrote: »

I don't know any countries with ZERO crime, but Singapore springs to mind... their rates of crime are very low. I know they have caned a few tourists who where caught for vandalism.

Human rights groups were crying out loud about it but I think harsh punishment is a small "price" to pay for social stability and harmony.

Indeed their rates of crime are very low, but strict punishments are ONE of many reasons why this is so. Read that and you will get an idea of the bigger picture. You are basically taking ONE aspect of a huge program and assuming that by simply implementing that one aspect you would reap the same benefits. I would disagree with you, quite strongly.

http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no56/56-12.pdf

Also, it might be interesting to look at the two extremes, the crime of murder and the punishment of death.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf

RichieC

whiteonion wrote: »

I never once mentioned class in my arguments, obviously I would not want punish people because they belong to a certain class in society.

Every fascist that has come before you spouted the same sh*te, yet the richer of the countries crimes have always gone by with lesser punishments, excuse me if at this point I call it bullsh*te.

landsleaving

whiteonion wrote: »

I never once mentioned class in my arguments, obviously I would not want punish people because they belong to a certain class in society.

Class is central to your point, whether intentionally or not. People turn to crime based on the class situation they're born into. When everyone is born into an equal opportunity, then you can start to debate how we treat the people who break the law. Before actually making some sort of equal society though, being overly harsh on criminals only serves to make matters worse, their children will turn to crime due to a lack of support, for example.

Draconian measures such as the death penalty and what you suggest can't work, because they fail to address the root of what turns people to crime. They are a crowd pleaser though.

JBnaglfar

whiteonion wrote: »

harsh punishment is a small "price" to pay for social stability and harmony.

Social stability/oppression: it's all the same :rolleyes:

(I hope you are a troll)

whiteonion

JBnaglfar wrote: »

Social stability/oppression: it's all the same :rolleyes:

(I hope you are a troll)

Does that mean you prefer decay and general anarchy?

ScumLord

whiteonion wrote: »

Does that mean you prefer decay and general anarchy?

That's not happening. By all accounts society is much better and safer than it's ever been. Stop reading he dailymail.

landsleaving

whiteonion wrote: »

Does that mean you prefer decay and general anarchy?

They sound like supervillains.

Logical Fallacy

whiteonion wrote: »

Does that mean you prefer decay and general anarchy?

Is this going to be one of those thread where you ignore any of the cogent points that are raised and just sit there on little patch of misplaced moral high ground?

If so let me know as i couldn't be bothered wasting valuable time conversing with someone who is not at all open to the points of others and just looking for a soap box and a circle jerk.

JBnaglfar

landsleaving wrote: »

They sound like supervillains.

Not sure about decay, but general anarchy is a clear rip-off of General Disarray

Aoifey!

Isn't prison meant to be a form of rehabilitation? A punishment for your crime in the hope you will turn your life around and start a new. Sure, it doesn't work with everyone, maybe not even the majority, but it does with some.

So what you want it to take away all rights? Take away food? So then once a prisoner is released, they have no choice other than to commit more crimes to get food etc. so they can survive. All your idea would do would be make sure criminals stay criminals.

nottherealdeal

This just asks the question is prison for punishment of rehabilitaion..?

When most people think of prison they automatically assume the worst in people; murder, manslaughter, drug crime, assault etc. but forget that prison is made up of other people too, -like other posters have mentioned- those who were convicted of minor crimes and offenses, young people who may have fallen off the right track. Those who are convicted of serious crimes are going to be locked up for a long time and denied the basic right to freedom which is punishment.
Those however who are sent away for 1-5 years should they be denied all their basic rights? How will that benefit them and society when they are released. Their is strong evidence stating that ex - prisoners find leaving prison hard because they are not taught much on what to do once they leave, and society dont really accept anyone with a criminal conviction.
Over half of convicts end up back in prison within the year, and this is largely due to not being equipped with the skills to function in the outside world (also many come from a poor socio-economic background and may not have had these skills to begin with). Without these skills they resort to what they know best -crime- to get their basics eg. money for B&B, food etc.

Do you not think by maybe turning the focus towards rehabilitation rather than punishment (of denying them everything like whitonion suggests) it would give them a better chance and be a more society friendly way of reducing crime?! And this approach would need to tackle the wider communitys views aswell.