If you want to rehabilitate prisoners, you need to reintegrate them into society, which means they need to have their civil rights back. Otherwise, why did we bother fighting a war over slavery?
I agree but it’s important to differentiate between accused criminals and convicted criminals, and what specific diminution of rights we’re talking about. Obviously jury-convicted violent criminals probably will suffer a harsher restriction on their rights than someone accused but not yet convicted of a minor misdemeanor. There will probably be a spectrum of restrictions on rights.
Are there people calling for all rights to be suspended upon indictment? Maybe on the fringes.
Countries that are known for corruption often have massive bureaucracies that are full of little seemingly inconsequential laws that most people can safely ignore all the time. The result is that nearly everybody’s breaking some rule just to function with some level of efficiency in society. In fact if you wanted to follow every rule it would break you.
The result is that whenever a vengeful government official wants to bring someone down all they have to do is investigate for a few minutes and figure out which is the most recent rule that was broken and poof that person’s a criminal.
But if you allow criminals to immigrate, give house arrest to assassins and such, never punish anyone for corruption and the rest of the world allows corrupt ex president’s to calmly live in Brussels and pay foreign agencies for social media attacks against political and judicial enemies… That’s what happens when you let the extreme left win (Ecuador)
I’m not sure how you made the jump from “removing rights” to “removing punishments.” Even the U.S. constitution has explicitly protected rights for the convicted and we definitely still have prisons.
I’m just saying it’s VERY real and happening in lots of South American countries that the left (communist) is making it too easy for gangs to explode and abuse jails as their private training camps, since those and other politicians are either blackmailed threatened or paid by narco groups
There are so many other problems at the root of stuff like this too.
First question is why do people actually turn to the gangs in the first place? Usually its because the government/society isn’t providing something those people need to survive, and the gang does. Either money or community, typically.
That is a very drastic slippery slope fallacy. You’re claiming that if convicted criminals have rights, then crime will take over and run the country. You are incorrectly conflating the preservation of rights with the removal of deterrents.
By the way, which South American countries are communist? If you are thinking of Cuba (which is not South American), then they actually use the criminal justice system to suppress rights, which is what this thread is claiming will happen if the rights of the convicted are removed.
Not just rights. Let them have Playstation like back home in Holland.
But not a way to take over charge of the entire penal system and government… Not a joke here, literally what happened in LOT of South middle American countries. NARCOCOMUNISMO
This is why “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is a fallacy. They could invent a reason to get rid of anyone they don’t like because the law is convoluted on purpose.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
Being against free speech is tyrannical. Also…Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Germany made being a Nazi illegal and everyone is fine with it.
Denazification was something of a joke.
West German President Walter Scheel and Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger were both former members of the Nazi Party. In 1950, a major controversy broke out when it emerged that Konrad Adenauer’s State Secretary Hans Globke had played a major role in drafting antisemitic Nuremberg Race Laws in Nazi Germany.
Between Operation Paperclip, the incorporation of the CIA, and the Cold War formation of NATO, Nazis were rapidly reformed and reintroduced to the public sphere over the next decade.
Operation GLADIO in Europe transformed a bunch of the Italy / Greek / Belgium / France WW2-era fascists into cartel bosses and arms dealers spread all across the continent. Fascist ideology, in the wake of WW2, was returned to its original Communist roots and was justified as a means of compelling Europeans to stay true to their nationalist roots and not fall victim to the Soviet Internationalism sweeping through the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Whether there’s “good guys” in a war is debatable. But if you’re under the belief that there are good guys in wars, then we can point to basically every war in history.
Censorship during wars was actually the norm in the past. The Spanish influenza didn’t originate in Spain, it’s just that it was first reported there. Because Spain wasn’t a part of WWI. The news in the countries involved in the war were censored and couldn’t report on it.
Nazi propaganda was banned in the US and other allied countries in WWII.
People in the American Revolution were publicly tortured (tarred and feathered) for speaking out against the revolutionary government.
Sorry, history just isn’t as clean and simple as you might think.
Just to add to this, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a phrase often used to define to limits of free speech. However, this was an analogy used by Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe what it is like to oppose the draft in WWI. That part of the ruling stood for about 40 years.
Thanks to you fucking assholes we now have shitloads of Nazis and thousands of far right radicalizing conspiracist talk shows over all forms of media. You couldn’t budge on even the least amount of reasonable regulation and now you have entirely fucked up nearly all of the civilized western world.
This is a huge mixture of a problem with how we raise kids, a problem with the education system, and problems with people’s livelihoods. Not really anything to do with free speech.
Anybody can just have a child and we’re coming out of 3 generations of fathers going to wars, lots of our kids aren’t raised well and don’t realize they need to see a psychologist.
Our education system is pretty shit, fails to motivate kids or understand how a child in 2024 retains information, and so the kids don’t care and they don’t learn and now you have millions of young adults who don’t know that you can’t just take what some youtuber says at face value.
And lots of people struggling to make ends meet means there are going to be a lot of people who don’t understand what they’re doing wrong and will look for a scapegoat.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
The one snag in this philosophy I run into is that “We have to protect the rights of the accused!” only ever seems to apply to the folks that can pay for the good PR and lawyers. Meanwhile, the Sinclair owned broadcaster in your neck of the woods spams “Black man behaving blackly in black part of Blacksburg! Officers on the scene to assist in the kinetic engagement of criminal suspect!” headlines headlines 24/7/365 and then the same limited government enthusiasts create this enormous mental carve out for people they identify as Violent By Nature.
Then you get a local jail full of Sandra Blands and the only people who bat an eye are casually dismissed as Far-Left Defund the Police BLM Rioters.
On the one hand, an ex-President with 91 indictments who moves through the criminal justice system at the speed of a snail. On the other, George Floyd getting his neck flattened because he passed a retailer a bad $20. And if you question the glacial pace of the first case, you’re accused of advocating the second. But also, if you oppose the casual police murder of suspects, you secretly want Donald Trumps doing industrial scale counterfeiting all over Minneapolis uncontested.
The op is read as “should have some fundamental rights vs no rights” while you’re turning the conversation into “all rights vs no rights” unless you intended to share another more nuanced point.
Criminals typically have controls in place, and should, depending on the nature of the crime.
Western legal systems are based not on jailing criminals but on keeping the innocent out of jail. This does result in more criminals roaming free but I’ll take that a hundred times over the alternative
The hell they are. Getting accused of ANYTHING in America VERY quickly becomes a matter of providing proof that you are innocent. And not having said proof will probably lead to a guilty verdict. Get a GOOD lawyer. Prosecution will basically fuck off if they have nothing but accusations and your defense lawyer is annoying enough to deal with. Otherwise they will waste as much of your time as they have to in order to make you think it won’t end until you admit to something you didn’t do. They’ll even offer to reduce the false charges. Western legal systems are a fucking joke.
Do not confuse Western and American just because America is to the west. Western European nations operate differently from America which is a 3rd world country with a Gucci handbag.
They’re better than systems that pre-suppose guilt and actually make you prove your innocence.
In those systems by the time you end up charged it’s pretty much too late to do anything but get a softer sentence.
It’s also worth noting that many of our justice system rights in the US have been severely eroded. Like the right to a jury trial, the prohibition on search and seizure without cause, the right to a lawyer, and the prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. With all of that compromised the predisposition of innocence is itself severely compromised.
Just for reference everyone reading has almost definitely committed multiple felonies. Three felonies a day was published 13 years ago, and while the title might be exaggerated, the argument is even more true today.
The great thing about Florida is that the people voted to give them the right to vote back after prison but Republicans in the state’s Congress hated that and did everything they could to stop it.
While voting rights CAN be restored, they ensured that the process to accomplish it was a Byzantine maze that could not be navigated. I don’t just mean it’s hard, I mean it’s impossible because some of the requirements can’t be met (eg they can’t pay all court costs if the government doesn’t know, or won’t say, the amount owed).
Your first problem was being in the South. Your second problem was expecting a red state to give rights to people. They’re pretty big on taking them away. Nothing “Civil” about it.
Add comment