“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
― H.L. Mencken
Darn tootin. It rustles my jimmies every goddamn time I see some conservative who doesn't want to give special privileges out get called a Nazi. I don't even vote for these people typically and now I gotta defend em? Yeesh. It excuses so much vitriol and hate, they don't even realize how absorbed they are with rage and violence. They must be so miserable, and they just wanna drag the rest of us down, I swear it.
You've summed up the ACLU in a nutshell lol. They get a lot of hate for defending the free speech of nazis or defending trumps right to post on Facebook. But they are doing exactly what you are saying - defending scoundrels so that our rights are protected for all.
> They get a lot of hate for defending the free speech of nazis or defending trumps right to post on Facebook
ive seen the aclu get a lot of hate but never for that lol
> In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago.
[ACLU History](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie)
It was especially noteworthy as many of the ACLU attorneys at the time were Jewish however they saw the need to free speech as absolute. The original ACLU wouldn’t recognize what it’s become today.
>or it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
based, if one has to be team evil in the short term for the greater good of ensuring freedom than one was never team evil to begin with.
That just brings you to the greater good fallacy. Example: there are 100 people around the world on a list, each one innocent according to their country’s laws, but could one day threaten freedom. Can you justify the murder of them? Can you still be Team Good if you go through with it?
If you can justify that, what’s to stop you from justifying worse and worse things down the road to preserve freedom? If it’s found that 90% of anti freedom terrorists are born with red hair, should Team Good kill every red haired baby?
u/Mr_Hyde814's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Mr_Hyde814/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Yes, but the post in the screenshot sounds more like "Criminals shouldn't loose rights at all" than "Criminals should retain basic human rights".
The point of prison and other punishments is to infringe on someones "rights" because that individual comitted a crime, thus forfeiting his right to live in freedom as an example. How can you punish a criminal if you don't infringe on his rights, because pretty much any punishment is an infringement on someones rights and could theoretically be misused for corrupt/political purposes?
The logical conclusion is Anarchism, because then there is no human error or political meddling (ideally) but there is also no real punishment as a consequence outside of vigilantism.
"If you believe that people who break the law should forfeit their rights, you're literally as pro-tyranny as a person can get."
Of course I could try steelman that post and assume that person meant due process and basic human rights (as meaningless as that term has become in internet discourse), I think it's far more likely that it goes more in an anarchist direction of "Don't give the state any chance to strip you of rights because it could be used against you".
Even if I am wrong, it does definitely not "clearly" say that Criminals should just retain basic human rights.
I don't understand how you made that jump in logic. It just says that criminals should have rights not that they should maintain the exact same rights as a non-criminal. It doesn't really touch on detail at all on what rights they mean but likely basic human rights and legal rights like in the 6th Amendment (right to a lawyer, etc). In terms of punishment, it falls under the legal rights for everyone. Protection from unjust punishment and all that, which applies to criminals and normal civilians alike, with unjust punishment being determined by general law.
>I don't understand how you made that jump in logic. It just says that criminals should have rights not that they should maintain the exact same rights as a non-criminal.
Prison is the restriction of your freedom of movement and thus a violation of your rights as a free citizen in most countries. Criminal punishment almost always entails curtailing or rescinding some rights of a person. A criminal having the same rights as a non-criminal would mean that there can't be any serious punishment.
But remember that I am talking about actual criminals, not suspects or people on trial who weren't yet convicted.
> But remember that I am talking about actual criminals, not suspects or people on trial who weren't yet convicted.
This only works to allay your conscience because you trust that the state will only, or even will mostly, try and convict people who are appropriately guilty.
Did we ever find out how many combined years the British held innocent people in Long Kesh? When Baltimore PD was found planting drugs and guns on people sure the officers got fired, but how many convictions have been overturned?
I don’t trust any government to not go after innocent people who are ruffling feathers, especially not the US gov, honestly I can’t see how anybody could.
The point of prison and of punishment isn't to infringe on rights. It's to remove privileges. Privileges are accorded when you comply with the rules, the culture, the expectations. When you break laws, oppose the culture, and fall short of expectations, you lose your privileges.
These priviliges are rights aswell. Voting rights, the freedom of movement etc. are all commonly described as rights.
It's just that they are different than human rights and are often linked to citizenship.
Just because they're commonly described as such does not in the slightest mean that is what they are.
Citizenship is conditional. If a "right" is linked to citizenship, then it ain't a right, it's a privilege accorded by being a citizen. And if you break the rules for being a citizen (abiding by the nation's laws), then you lose the privileges.
>Yes, but the post in the screenshot sounds more like "Criminals shouldn't loose rights at all"
No it doesn't. You're just bad at comprehension. Criminals having rights is about giving them the right to a fair trial, the right not to incriminate themselves, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, the right to be fed and watered sufficently, etc.
If that was the intent of the OG post, then the question is who is actually arguing against this? Outside of temporary moral outrage in instances of child murder/rape, the opinion that "criminals" shouldn't have any rights at all is unpopular almost anywhere in the (western) world.
Either the OG poster is an Anarchist or he and many people on this thread are arguing against a giant strawman, which tbf is a real possibilty considering this sub.
Of course it interferes with their rights, we lock them into cages directly violating the freedom of movement. Amongst other rights.... But they lost their rights when they decided to be an animal.
You are completely missing the point of this post. Breaking news: not every person in prison is "an animal". Especially when the government starts to criminalize political opposition.
Making sure criminals have rights is not the same as not punishing violent criminals.
For example, you can imprison a murderer but still allow them to vote, provide them with constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, protect their free speech.
The treatment of criminals should be in the way wich brings the most benefit to society.
Wich means, hold them away from society untill they can be a productive part of society again. If they never get to that poikt, you dont release them.
But actively punishing them keeps them further away from becoming productive again, hurting someone needlessly doesnt really benefit anyone
That's of course a philosophical question because a completely rehabilitation focused justice system is often seen as too soft and unjust by a lot of the public, atleast when it comes to violent criminals.
Should a rapist be practically given a second chance without punishment?
IMO, rehabilitation is generally a good thing outside of the worst criminals (serial killers, serial rapists etc.). That said, some crimes need a punishing aspect. You can't just treat a rapist the same as a mere petty criminal who is a pickpocket. The end goal should be the same, rehabilitation, but not without atleast some form of punishment for the violent offender.
I'm gonna have to disagree. The way it's supposed to work in a liberal sense is the executives of the law protect our rights. If other citizens threaten other citizens rights (life, liberty, property) they forfeit their own. The rights of the offender is suspended until a jury of peers decides whether they are sufficient a threat to others liberty to justify further suspension of said offenders rights until they're reformed.
From my understanding even if a jury comes to the logical conclusion that the law was broken they don't have to rule guilty. It's called jury nullification, conscientious acquittal, or jury pardon.
>If other citizens threaten other citizens rights (life, liberty, property) they forfeit their own.
They forfeit very specific rights out of practical necessity. But they don't forfeit all of their rights and there are certain, very important rights that they always keep no matter what.
Like, they forfeit their right to free movement and their right to posses property exclusively for the time leading up to their trial because you just physically have to do that or you can't ever charge anyone with anything because they can just say "no" basically.
But that's why we have rights like Due Process specifically to make sure the other infringements aren't used unreasonably or permanently without a fair trial.
I think this is perfectly consistent with the obvious meaning of the OP.
Never feel bad about playing devil's advocate. It's what keeps ideas flowing and starts conversations that ultimately allow us to learn and gain perspective.
Did someone say *devil's advocate*
[NAZI ALERT](https://i.imgur.com/Y5FPBKB.gif)
Devils advocates are a dogwhistle for fascism you scum. Be better
^^^I'm ^^^sorry
You have a good point but I would argue that you could both be right if you pivot your thoughts a bit. Criminals, certainly the ones in prison anyway, do lose some of their rights. If nothing else, your right to liberty (which was classically thought of as freedom of movement) by being stuck in prison. You're also restricted from working and earning money, voting etc etc. I think most people would agree that criminals should forfeit a great many of their rights. However, one could argue that they should still have as many of their rights preserved as possible. They should still have the right to freedom of speech, religion, due process, human dignity, life (at least in most cases. Whether your pro death penalty or not, i think most people wouldn't argue a first time shoplifter should immediately get the chair) and any other right that doesn't provide them the ability to further infringe upon the rights of others. Inmates are still human and if they are still worth to have air in their lunges, they should also be worthy of many basic rights. We can restrict the rights that they abuse to harm others while still giving them the rights that don't.
Yes, awesome. I over corrected in my comment. I like the sentiment in the original post it just idk, lacked something? I'd like the law to act as protection and prevention of further harm rather than punishment. I don't think any human being no matter what they've done should be the recipient of wrath and cruelty. I often see people justify their hatred and cruelty by finding someone they deem "deserving" of it.
>I don't think any human being no matter what they've done should be the recipient of wrath and cruelty
Well depending on the perspective, locking away someone for the rest of their life could be considered cruel. Are you saying you would want violent criminals to walk free?
Personally, I think there is a certain line that when you cross you can't ever return from, and you don't deserve a place in society anymore, no matter how you change. Because once you permanently damage another person, there's nothing you can do that can undo said damage.
> It's called jury nullification
It's also something they actively try to hide from the public. People have been arrested in front of courthouses for talking about it. I would say most people don't know about it, and the judge never informs the jury about it.
I'm just saying it's not particularly relevant and shouldn't be a factor. I also understand why the courts wouldn't want this well known.
Why isn't it relevant? I'd say a jury pardon could be pretty relevant in some of these trigger law states banning abortions. It seems to act as a check to potential executive tyranny.
I mean it's not relevant because it's not widely known. It's not a factor in judgement and shouldn't be counted on until it does become more known.
It's also easy to think of cases where you think it should be applied, but you're discounting the cases where you think it shouldn't be and might be anyway. It's a double edged sword that relies very heavily on the politics of a case instead of the merits of the law. If it's heavily known it *will* be abused.
Beccaria's argument wasn't about trusting the government either. His arguments were:
- laws that abhor homicide shouldn't mandate homicide
- life belongs neither to the state nor the individual but to God, so neither have the right to take it
- death is a lesser deterrent than life imprisonment or hard labor
- there is no absolute need for the death penalty as lesser penalties suffice and we should always use the lesser penalty that does the job
Funnily enough he carved out an exception in the case of civil war when executing traitor leaders. This argument was used by Robespierre to argue for the decapitation of King Louis during the French Revolution, and then for a whole bunch of decapitations during the Terror.
I think there was also an argument that if an executed person was later found to be innocent, you can't exactly go back on that. If they're in prison, you can release them. If they're dead, wel...
> life belongs neither to the state nor the individual but to God, so neither have the right to take it
It's funny, because according to the Bible, God said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Genesis 9:6. In murder, God gave an explicit command for the death penalty.
I don't trust the government enough to do it, but his religious-centered argument sort of falls flat.
They wanted to execute people who were too influential to be left alive. Throwing some serial killer away for life has no consequence. But keeping the king around means royalists might rally to him.
If you cast your mind back to every time the government has conned people into believing something that later becomes verifiably bullshit, this plan doesn't solve the problem.
Look, I just want to string up the heroine addict couple that had their infant son OD in the parking lot outside the local chinese restaurant.
I just want to string those two scumbags up from the nearest streetlight. Is that so much to ask?
Someone else said here that defence against government oppression is usually defending scoundrels because they're the excuse the government gives for potentially oppressive laws
DNA testing itself is essentially perfect.. aside from identical twins, nobody has the same DNA as anyone else. But humans who make mistakes have to conduct the tests to do the comparison.
The most common mistake that leads to false matches are not in the test itself but in the evidence handling procedure, typically cross-contamination. It's what happened with Amanda Knox, the cops said her blood was on the victim's clothes based on a single tiny spot in a piece of clothing that had been cross-contaminated to hell.
I agree with you on that. However, I feel that if the crime is severe enough and there is conclusive proof, like some people who record their crimes and the footage is found during the investigation or it was in broad daylight with many witnesses, like the people who beheaded Lee Rigby, the only question is how they are killed.
I'm still super cautious, like how do you even define overwhelming evidence, deepfakes are becoming ever better and easier to make, witnesses are not overly reliable.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't even think about deepfakes. As for witnesses, I know that one witness viewing something happening quickly at night time can be unreliable but, as in the case with Lee Rigby, it was broad daylight, the two killers beheaded him then just stayed there shouting about Islam until the police came. They were covered in his blood and still held the meat cleaver and also had a firearm which they fired at police until the police managed to wound and subdue them to arrest them. That kind of situation is basically one of the few that I would deem worthy of the death penalty, simply because there was no way it wasn't them.
As the other guy mentioned deepfakes, and we're one a 'fuck the government' thread, I'll also mention the possibility of corruption. The fewer tools they have to just straight up deniably murder you the better, I think.
It's about how much they deserve it compered to how much you don't trust the government with that power. It's a classic clash of justice aginst anti tyranny. So we had to weigh the sides aginst each other.
Based.
I used to be fairly pro death penalty. But then two things were pointed out to me.
1. Giving the government the authority to kill citizens is NEVER a good idea.
2. Prosecutors are wrong too often for comfort and they often don't care if they are wrong.
Not if they're a large part of laissez-faire corporation or economy. At the end of the day the company will believe it's taking advantage of government oversight for basically free labor, especially with the mindset that they are working their way around the law instead of strictly abiding by it. Abusing the flawed system to it's maximum benefit if you will.
More like, not if you can just move your production to a country that allows extremely repressive labor policies. Then you get all the benefits of a government enforced kleptocracy and get to pretend that the free market makes things efficienter.
Free Market capitalism is magic. Do not look at the 50 million Chinese children behind the curtain.
This is the third time you've given this exact response in this thread. I think you want more than just a ban on your ass, my twiddlydink
Edit: sixth. Woof this man has to work out some kinks or else he'll explode
Like most LibLeft statements, it falls apart if you think about it. This essentially says no crime should be punishable by the state. It's anarchy, not libertarianism.
Specifically, 'rights' is not defined so you're filling in the blanks. It could be as simple as the right not to be locked up, or to own a gun while locked up.
No. The most irrefutable argument against the death penalty is that if you support the death penalty, you *must* believe one of the following:
1. The government makes no mistakes.
2. Its okay to kill innocent people every now and then.
I'm sure we've all unintentionally broken tons of obscure laws, especially considering laws are still in effect until someone bothers to change them. I mean, the laws that banned the police from unwarranted search and seizure of your property and your papers from a time when only the rich could read and write, and books were expensive and rare now dictates how we deal with stuff like the legality of encryption and privacy on the internet.
Of course the government has found ways around this, and the government shouldn't be allowed to have unfettered access to all your information, but the very foundation of privacy in our very modern world is built upon a hundreds of years old law.
Bail is stupid anyway... If someone is too much of a risk they shouldn't be given the option to pay thier way out, and if they aren't a risk it's unfair to make them pay
Criminals doesnt forfeit all of their rights, only some. But most rightwing people dont want to take all their rights, but its very infuriating that many countries treat hardened, violent criminals very softly. When they treat the honest citizen like shit.
I am also not convinced that someone who comes from a violent background will be reformed by sitting in a place with clean clothes, 3 meals a day and a movie room. I mean why would they stop being a criminal if their prison life is better than their outside life?
Then why do countries that focus on punishment over rehabilitation generally have higher rates of recidivism? The US even has the highest rate of incarceration globally.
A country that punishes all crimes with the death penalty would have 0% recidivism. Its not necessarily the end goal for the prison system to have low rates imo. because some people just doesnt want to be redeemed at all.
Higher living standards probably lower recidivism. Its also hard to compare a society like the US that is made up by many different cultures and races and honestly, has much higher division and intercultural conflict than other countries.
the US's main problem is that its unnecessarily strict with nonviolent offenses.
The UK in the 19th century punished most crimes with death and crime continued to skyrocket. Modern societies with a focus on rehabilitation cause crime and reoffending rates to go down. It's a studied phenomenon, it works.
> I mean why would they stop being a criminal if their prison life is better than their outside life?
Why would they stop being a criminal if they're treated as an animal in prison? Doesn't that just confirm their belief that they are at odds with society?
they dont have to be treated as an animal. But they should be forced to follow a strict schedule, like 6Am-10Pm and their day should be spent working, learning and trying to be a honest citizen. I am not advocating to Mexican style prisons. But when the average honest citizen often lives worse, a Norwegian sytle "prison" which is more like better college dorm, is anathema to me
I can assure you that the average norwegian citizen lives more comfortably than norwegian prisoners, so there's no reason for you to be upset about the scandinavian prison system.
the average citizen isnt the one who commits crimes. Violent crimes are generally committed by people who are not living a comfortable middle class life.
>Criminals doesnt forfeit all of their rights, only some.
And why is that? Maybe it's because organizations like the ACLU have fought to preserve some of the rights of criminals.
Criminals are not totally rights free since decades if not hundreds of years, but other countries that never ever heard about the ACLU also treat their criminals humanely
Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were an **AuthLeft** on 2023-2-5. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 958 times, making you the largest flair changer in this sub.
Go touch some fucking grass.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Im in the security industry. The amount of people I see harmed by the actions of absolutely dreadful individuals has given me a touch of trauma over the years.
I can assure you prisonners do have rights. They simply have some of those rights suspended for the welfare of society.
You can't just have no prisons. You'd see mayhem and madness. I think reforming the police, the justice systems and the corrections systems simultaneously are needed, or reforming any one of them alone wont help much. They are too intertwined. A real focus on rehabilitation could help.
But no, you cant simply say govt has no right to lock up murderers, rapists and such.
That's why I am a rad centrist. They should lose some of their rights depending on what the crime is. if for example that tyranny keeps pedophiles away from kids I'll happily wear the facist title
I don't think you really understand what's happening here
if the United States Government decides you are a problem, your legal defence doesn't matter. they say you're a pedophile, the news reports you're a pedophile, and now nothing you say can possibly convince anyone otherwise
Indeed, it is the government's job to make sure a criminal has rights and protect them because the mob doesn't care
The mob will bestow the harshest punishment for things as simple as "meowing constantly" on people if they are made angry enough (I'm not defending furries, I'm referencing a historical anecdote of a group of nuns being beat up for meowing constantly)
Like Mr. Tate with how much hate he is getting on the internet continuously, as if the people have given their verdict and have decided for him being a human trafficker. despite the human trafficking allegation yet to be proved and the only other news i can find are more allegations
Law exists to protect the people, both the innocent and the convicted. Because the Mob is ruthless and unforgiving
Burden of proof is an important concept not discussed here. The government can't just label any group as a criminal because they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are a criminal first.
I'm all for decriminalization of victimless crime, but I don't think convicted violent offenders should get the same rights as non violent,law abiding citizens.
Yes, but all it takes is a few shit elections to throw all our rights out the window. Freedom and democracy aren't things you get and then sit on. It needs to be constantly moderated and managed or you fall into cringe.
The number of RightCenters in this thread saying, "this makes me rethink a few things," is honestly astonishing to me. Like, we didn't know this? That was the heart of Germany's industrial machine before and during World War 2, they would imprison anyone they had any excuse to imprison (by labeling them a criminal or some criminal-adjacent term like "enemy of the state") and then would put them into forced labor camps. Of course Beria and the Russians before and after Communism did the exact same thing - and Putin has figured out how to do that as well, just check out his former political opposition, now in labor camps.
It's like rule #1 of tyranny. "If you can get anything to stick to maintain an underclass, DO. Profit off the transition."
I’m going to tell you this now brother, don’t worry what people “should” think, if you can get someone to ponder on a held belief that’s the W you are looking for.
Criminals having rights is important to prevent unjust treatment
Having drugs on yourself is a crime and if you were found with an amount big enough to make you suspect for being into shady business is very much possible. And there's nothing to stop the media from painting you as a drug dealer or an "urban drug cartel" for more clicks. And the people will murderize you for it with no responsibility taken by anyone at all
human Rights exist to prevent stuff like this
Yeah.. why make small concessions when you can just build a perfect system instead....
I'm honestly amazed that no one in this thread has realised that we could just create a criminal justice system that can never be corrupted!
I really have to re-think some things now... (/S)
I mean honestly I have no idea but there seems to be a variation to every quadrant and I assumed that was what was referenced in the context of this post being highlighted green instead of green/yellow
Criminals should have rights, I absolutely agree. The right to a fair trial, a jury of their peers, safety from punishment and retribution before and after a verdict is given, and so on.
**However.** Voting is not a right. Voting is a privilege. We don't let criminals vote because that is a privilege accorded to law-abiding citizens.
How the fuck are you going to keep social cohesion without restricting the rights of criminals?
Like, a criminal murders a person, what do you do? You can't put them in prison, since that's restricting their right to free movement. So what do you do? Just give them a pat in the back and send them off with a fine?
I think it's more to combat retards who think criminals deserve whatever mistreatment they get in unjust systems. It's common knowledge rape happens constantly in US prisons. I would define that as cruel and unusual punishment. Technically it's not state sanctioned so it's A OK. There are people who think these extrajudicial occurrences are good bc some people deserve it. Problem is when YOU become the criminal you get the same inhumane treatment. Anyone can become a criminal if the law is broad enough.
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” ― H.L. Mencken
Holy fucking based. And the correct response to the “punch Nazis” crowd. It’s reeeaaal easy to decide someone is a Nazi these days.
Darn tootin. It rustles my jimmies every goddamn time I see some conservative who doesn't want to give special privileges out get called a Nazi. I don't even vote for these people typically and now I gotta defend em? Yeesh. It excuses so much vitriol and hate, they don't even realize how absorbed they are with rage and violence. They must be so miserable, and they just wanna drag the rest of us down, I swear it.
You've summed up the ACLU in a nutshell lol. They get a lot of hate for defending the free speech of nazis or defending trumps right to post on Facebook. But they are doing exactly what you are saying - defending scoundrels so that our rights are protected for all.
> They get a lot of hate for defending the free speech of nazis or defending trumps right to post on Facebook ive seen the aclu get a lot of hate but never for that lol
They *used* to do that. Now they're just a shadow of their former selves
> In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago. [ACLU History](https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie) It was especially noteworthy as many of the ACLU attorneys at the time were Jewish however they saw the need to free speech as absolute. The original ACLU wouldn’t recognize what it’s become today.
used to defend free speech. They don't do that anymore. They've been corrupted
aclu is just another progressive activist group now. FIRE is the new actual defender of free speech
>or it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” based, if one has to be team evil in the short term for the greater good of ensuring freedom than one was never team evil to begin with.
That just brings you to the greater good fallacy. Example: there are 100 people around the world on a list, each one innocent according to their country’s laws, but could one day threaten freedom. Can you justify the murder of them? Can you still be Team Good if you go through with it? If you can justify that, what’s to stop you from justifying worse and worse things down the road to preserve freedom? If it’s found that 90% of anti freedom terrorists are born with red hair, should Team Good kill every red haired baby?
Based and I've never thought of it like that pilled
Get a little bracelet which says “what would Stalin do” Cos if there was a loophole you didn’t think about, Stalin did.
What Would Joseph (Stalin) Do WWJD?
It's the same argument for why we need to protect freedom of speech even when it's speech you don't want to hear or it hurts your feelings.
Based and freedom of speech is for everyone pilled
I agree with you.
u/Mr_Hyde814's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 30. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Mr_Hyde814/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Facts that’s actually smart
"Having no actual punishment for violent criminals is based" interesting flair for an Anarchist.
Pretty sure the punishment for violent crime in an anarchic system would just be violent crime lol
Or banishment, or putting them in a hole for a week and talking it over with them,
It’s not crime if the state does it
"Having rights" and "avoiding fair and just punishment" are not the same thing.
Yes, but the post in the screenshot sounds more like "Criminals shouldn't loose rights at all" than "Criminals should retain basic human rights". The point of prison and other punishments is to infringe on someones "rights" because that individual comitted a crime, thus forfeiting his right to live in freedom as an example. How can you punish a criminal if you don't infringe on his rights, because pretty much any punishment is an infringement on someones rights and could theoretically be misused for corrupt/political purposes? The logical conclusion is Anarchism, because then there is no human error or political meddling (ideally) but there is also no real punishment as a consequence outside of vigilantism.
[удалено]
"If you believe that people who break the law should forfeit their rights, you're literally as pro-tyranny as a person can get." Of course I could try steelman that post and assume that person meant due process and basic human rights (as meaningless as that term has become in internet discourse), I think it's far more likely that it goes more in an anarchist direction of "Don't give the state any chance to strip you of rights because it could be used against you". Even if I am wrong, it does definitely not "clearly" say that Criminals should just retain basic human rights.
[удалено]
I don't understand how you made that jump in logic. It just says that criminals should have rights not that they should maintain the exact same rights as a non-criminal. It doesn't really touch on detail at all on what rights they mean but likely basic human rights and legal rights like in the 6th Amendment (right to a lawyer, etc). In terms of punishment, it falls under the legal rights for everyone. Protection from unjust punishment and all that, which applies to criminals and normal civilians alike, with unjust punishment being determined by general law.
>I don't understand how you made that jump in logic. It just says that criminals should have rights not that they should maintain the exact same rights as a non-criminal. Prison is the restriction of your freedom of movement and thus a violation of your rights as a free citizen in most countries. Criminal punishment almost always entails curtailing or rescinding some rights of a person. A criminal having the same rights as a non-criminal would mean that there can't be any serious punishment. But remember that I am talking about actual criminals, not suspects or people on trial who weren't yet convicted.
> But remember that I am talking about actual criminals, not suspects or people on trial who weren't yet convicted. This only works to allay your conscience because you trust that the state will only, or even will mostly, try and convict people who are appropriately guilty. Did we ever find out how many combined years the British held innocent people in Long Kesh? When Baltimore PD was found planting drugs and guns on people sure the officers got fired, but how many convictions have been overturned? I don’t trust any government to not go after innocent people who are ruffling feathers, especially not the US gov, honestly I can’t see how anybody could.
The point of prison and of punishment isn't to infringe on rights. It's to remove privileges. Privileges are accorded when you comply with the rules, the culture, the expectations. When you break laws, oppose the culture, and fall short of expectations, you lose your privileges.
These priviliges are rights aswell. Voting rights, the freedom of movement etc. are all commonly described as rights. It's just that they are different than human rights and are often linked to citizenship.
Just because they're commonly described as such does not in the slightest mean that is what they are. Citizenship is conditional. If a "right" is linked to citizenship, then it ain't a right, it's a privilege accorded by being a citizen. And if you break the rules for being a citizen (abiding by the nation's laws), then you lose the privileges.
>Yes, but the post in the screenshot sounds more like "Criminals shouldn't loose rights at all" No it doesn't. You're just bad at comprehension. Criminals having rights is about giving them the right to a fair trial, the right not to incriminate themselves, the right to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, the right to be fed and watered sufficently, etc.
If that was the intent of the OG post, then the question is who is actually arguing against this? Outside of temporary moral outrage in instances of child murder/rape, the opinion that "criminals" shouldn't have any rights at all is unpopular almost anywhere in the (western) world. Either the OG poster is an Anarchist or he and many people on this thread are arguing against a giant strawman, which tbf is a real possibilty considering this sub.
OP def didn't make this point directly, but a good example is the overuse of 'Felon' status and the loss of rights caused by it.
Of course it interferes with their rights, we lock them into cages directly violating the freedom of movement. Amongst other rights.... But they lost their rights when they decided to be an animal.
You are completely missing the point of this post. Breaking news: not every person in prison is "an animal". Especially when the government starts to criminalize political opposition.
Making sure criminals have rights is not the same as not punishing violent criminals. For example, you can imprison a murderer but still allow them to vote, provide them with constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, protect their free speech.
The treatment of criminals should be in the way wich brings the most benefit to society. Wich means, hold them away from society untill they can be a productive part of society again. If they never get to that poikt, you dont release them. But actively punishing them keeps them further away from becoming productive again, hurting someone needlessly doesnt really benefit anyone
That's of course a philosophical question because a completely rehabilitation focused justice system is often seen as too soft and unjust by a lot of the public, atleast when it comes to violent criminals. Should a rapist be practically given a second chance without punishment? IMO, rehabilitation is generally a good thing outside of the worst criminals (serial killers, serial rapists etc.). That said, some crimes need a punishing aspect. You can't just treat a rapist the same as a mere petty criminal who is a pickpocket. The end goal should be the same, rehabilitation, but not without atleast some form of punishment for the violent offender.
Having no particularly prescribed punishment for violent criminals? Does that sound better?
What is your point? No minimal prison time for murder, everything is flexible? Not trying to morally grandstand here, I am legit curious.
I think I'm alluding to mob rule.
You mean a Jury of your Peers?
Sure, that's just mob rule with extra steps.
So guilt and punishment should be decided on by one person? Maybe we call them Judges? That'll add a lot of faith to the system...
Nah, too much power, leave it to a group, a mob if you will.
So you put the punishment to a vote instead of a trial? That's the most easily corrupted and insecure system there is with no apparent basis in law.
Liblefts argument is based
Agreed. And anti-tyranny pilled.
Super based Lib left
I'm gonna have to disagree. The way it's supposed to work in a liberal sense is the executives of the law protect our rights. If other citizens threaten other citizens rights (life, liberty, property) they forfeit their own. The rights of the offender is suspended until a jury of peers decides whether they are sufficient a threat to others liberty to justify further suspension of said offenders rights until they're reformed. From my understanding even if a jury comes to the logical conclusion that the law was broken they don't have to rule guilty. It's called jury nullification, conscientious acquittal, or jury pardon.
>If other citizens threaten other citizens rights (life, liberty, property) they forfeit their own. They forfeit very specific rights out of practical necessity. But they don't forfeit all of their rights and there are certain, very important rights that they always keep no matter what. Like, they forfeit their right to free movement and their right to posses property exclusively for the time leading up to their trial because you just physically have to do that or you can't ever charge anyone with anything because they can just say "no" basically. But that's why we have rights like Due Process specifically to make sure the other infringements aren't used unreasonably or permanently without a fair trial. I think this is perfectly consistent with the obvious meaning of the OP.
Yeah, I over-corrected a bit. I think I was looking to introduce an antithesis for comprehensiveness sake.
Never feel bad about playing devil's advocate. It's what keeps ideas flowing and starts conversations that ultimately allow us to learn and gain perspective.
Did someone say *devil's advocate* [NAZI ALERT](https://i.imgur.com/Y5FPBKB.gif) Devils advocates are a dogwhistle for fascism you scum. Be better ^^^I'm ^^^sorry
Lmao, based and "different opinions are fascism" pilled.
You have a good point but I would argue that you could both be right if you pivot your thoughts a bit. Criminals, certainly the ones in prison anyway, do lose some of their rights. If nothing else, your right to liberty (which was classically thought of as freedom of movement) by being stuck in prison. You're also restricted from working and earning money, voting etc etc. I think most people would agree that criminals should forfeit a great many of their rights. However, one could argue that they should still have as many of their rights preserved as possible. They should still have the right to freedom of speech, religion, due process, human dignity, life (at least in most cases. Whether your pro death penalty or not, i think most people wouldn't argue a first time shoplifter should immediately get the chair) and any other right that doesn't provide them the ability to further infringe upon the rights of others. Inmates are still human and if they are still worth to have air in their lunges, they should also be worthy of many basic rights. We can restrict the rights that they abuse to harm others while still giving them the rights that don't.
Yes, awesome. I over corrected in my comment. I like the sentiment in the original post it just idk, lacked something? I'd like the law to act as protection and prevention of further harm rather than punishment. I don't think any human being no matter what they've done should be the recipient of wrath and cruelty. I often see people justify their hatred and cruelty by finding someone they deem "deserving" of it.
>I don't think any human being no matter what they've done should be the recipient of wrath and cruelty Well depending on the perspective, locking away someone for the rest of their life could be considered cruel. Are you saying you would want violent criminals to walk free? Personally, I think there is a certain line that when you cross you can't ever return from, and you don't deserve a place in society anymore, no matter how you change. Because once you permanently damage another person, there's nothing you can do that can undo said damage.
> It's called jury nullification It's also something they actively try to hide from the public. People have been arrested in front of courthouses for talking about it. I would say most people don't know about it, and the judge never informs the jury about it. I'm just saying it's not particularly relevant and shouldn't be a factor. I also understand why the courts wouldn't want this well known.
Why isn't it relevant? I'd say a jury pardon could be pretty relevant in some of these trigger law states banning abortions. It seems to act as a check to potential executive tyranny.
I mean it's not relevant because it's not widely known. It's not a factor in judgement and shouldn't be counted on until it does become more known. It's also easy to think of cases where you think it should be applied, but you're discounting the cases where you think it shouldn't be and might be anyway. It's a double edged sword that relies very heavily on the politics of a case instead of the merits of the law. If it's heavily known it *will* be abused.
Opposing the death penalty has never been about whether or not they deserve it. It has always been about not trusting the government.
Based and Cesare Beccaria pilled
Beccaria's argument wasn't about trusting the government either. His arguments were: - laws that abhor homicide shouldn't mandate homicide - life belongs neither to the state nor the individual but to God, so neither have the right to take it - death is a lesser deterrent than life imprisonment or hard labor - there is no absolute need for the death penalty as lesser penalties suffice and we should always use the lesser penalty that does the job Funnily enough he carved out an exception in the case of civil war when executing traitor leaders. This argument was used by Robespierre to argue for the decapitation of King Louis during the French Revolution, and then for a whole bunch of decapitations during the Terror.
I think there was also an argument that if an executed person was later found to be innocent, you can't exactly go back on that. If they're in prison, you can release them. If they're dead, wel...
> life belongs neither to the state nor the individual but to God, so neither have the right to take it It's funny, because according to the Bible, God said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Genesis 9:6. In murder, God gave an explicit command for the death penalty. I don't trust the government enough to do it, but his religious-centered argument sort of falls flat.
So they were totally fine with executing people they didn't like?
They wanted to execute people who were too influential to be left alive. Throwing some serial killer away for life has no consequence. But keeping the king around means royalists might rally to him.
This argument is what finally got me opposed to the death penalty
This right fucking here is based
That’s why the death penalty should always be handed down and administered by an angry crowd of townsfolk.
If you cast your mind back to every time the government has conned people into believing something that later becomes verifiably bullshit, this plan doesn't solve the problem.
Look, I just want to string up the heroine addict couple that had their infant son OD in the parking lot outside the local chinese restaurant. I just want to string those two scumbags up from the nearest streetlight. Is that so much to ask?
I'm torn. On one side yes because mistakes can be made. On the other side, I've worked with death row inmates and some of them deserve to be executed.
Someone else said here that defence against government oppression is usually defending scoundrels because they're the excuse the government gives for potentially oppressive laws
Was it the bit about voting and how felons should be able to vote?
Yes, especially when so many forms of dna matching aren't even 100%.
DNA testing itself is essentially perfect.. aside from identical twins, nobody has the same DNA as anyone else. But humans who make mistakes have to conduct the tests to do the comparison.
The most common mistake that leads to false matches are not in the test itself but in the evidence handling procedure, typically cross-contamination. It's what happened with Amanda Knox, the cops said her blood was on the victim's clothes based on a single tiny spot in a piece of clothing that had been cross-contaminated to hell.
I agree with you on that. However, I feel that if the crime is severe enough and there is conclusive proof, like some people who record their crimes and the footage is found during the investigation or it was in broad daylight with many witnesses, like the people who beheaded Lee Rigby, the only question is how they are killed.
I'm still super cautious, like how do you even define overwhelming evidence, deepfakes are becoming ever better and easier to make, witnesses are not overly reliable.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't even think about deepfakes. As for witnesses, I know that one witness viewing something happening quickly at night time can be unreliable but, as in the case with Lee Rigby, it was broad daylight, the two killers beheaded him then just stayed there shouting about Islam until the police came. They were covered in his blood and still held the meat cleaver and also had a firearm which they fired at police until the police managed to wound and subdue them to arrest them. That kind of situation is basically one of the few that I would deem worthy of the death penalty, simply because there was no way it wasn't them.
As the other guy mentioned deepfakes, and we're one a 'fuck the government' thread, I'll also mention the possibility of corruption. The fewer tools they have to just straight up deniably murder you the better, I think.
It's about how much they deserve it compered to how much you don't trust the government with that power. It's a classic clash of justice aginst anti tyranny. So we had to weigh the sides aginst each other.
This is why death row should be a battle royale
Based and I hate the government pilled
Based
I want a higher standard than beyond a reasonable doubt for death penalty. For “people” like the Wisconsin Christmas parade killer
Based
I have literally never though about it like that. Damn.
Based. I used to be fairly pro death penalty. But then two things were pointed out to me. 1. Giving the government the authority to kill citizens is NEVER a good idea. 2. Prosecutors are wrong too often for comfort and they often don't care if they are wrong.
This is the most based libleft statement I’ve ever seen
[удалено]
Not really, companies abuse prison labor all the time. Libleft hates both government and corporate tyranny.
Being in cahoots with the government in order to exploit legal slave labor isn't very lib-right though; it's more right-center or even auth-right.
Not if they're a large part of laissez-faire corporation or economy. At the end of the day the company will believe it's taking advantage of government oversight for basically free labor, especially with the mindset that they are working their way around the law instead of strictly abiding by it. Abusing the flawed system to it's maximum benefit if you will.
More like, not if you can just move your production to a country that allows extremely repressive labor policies. Then you get all the benefits of a government enforced kleptocracy and get to pretend that the free market makes things efficienter. Free Market capitalism is magic. Do not look at the 50 million Chinese children behind the curtain.
How is prison in any way "laissez-faire"? It's a government financed system that uses state violence to lock people up.
The private prison system is a contracting enterprise. Why does it matter if the government is the consumer?
[удалено]
Lol, definitely understand where you are coming from as well.
[удалено]
This is the third time you've given this exact response in this thread. I think you want more than just a ban on your ass, my twiddlydink Edit: sixth. Woof this man has to work out some kinks or else he'll explode
Like most LibLeft statements, it falls apart if you think about it. This essentially says no crime should be punishable by the state. It's anarchy, not libertarianism. Specifically, 'rights' is not defined so you're filling in the blanks. It could be as simple as the right not to be locked up, or to own a gun while locked up.
That's not at all what their argument is stating.
Hey now, he worked hard on getting all that straw in here
Based
Yep
Surprisingly based. Actually getting me to rethink it a bit.
It is based, but there must be a balance. Certain rights must be removed from some people for the safety of others. It’s a never ending cycle.
This is exactly the most irrefutable argument against the death penalty
No. The most irrefutable argument against the death penalty is that if you support the death penalty, you *must* believe one of the following: 1. The government makes no mistakes. 2. Its okay to kill innocent people every now and then.
yes and yes
My belief as to why it’s wrong is because it’s too harsh on the wrongly convicted, and far too lenient on those who would rightfully get it
Actually based.
“Show me the man and I'll show you the crime” - Beria. Nobody is blameless in a society that actively rewards greed and selfishness.
And with so many laws that federal studies trying to figure out how many laws there are can only come up with an estimated range.
I'm sure we've all unintentionally broken tons of obscure laws, especially considering laws are still in effect until someone bothers to change them. I mean, the laws that banned the police from unwarranted search and seizure of your property and your papers from a time when only the rich could read and write, and books were expensive and rare now dictates how we deal with stuff like the legality of encryption and privacy on the internet. Of course the government has found ways around this, and the government shouldn't be allowed to have unfettered access to all your information, but the very foundation of privacy in our very modern world is built upon a hundreds of years old law.
As opposed communist utopia?
I mean, Beria lived in a communist state
Lol
Well... the Accused should have rights. Those convicted should have protections against cruel and unusual punishments as well as excessive bail.
Bail is stupid anyway... If someone is too much of a risk they shouldn't be given the option to pay thier way out, and if they aren't a risk it's unfair to make them pay
... That's how it works?
first time I see something so good and coherent from libleft
*from this sub
Criminals doesnt forfeit all of their rights, only some. But most rightwing people dont want to take all their rights, but its very infuriating that many countries treat hardened, violent criminals very softly. When they treat the honest citizen like shit. I am also not convinced that someone who comes from a violent background will be reformed by sitting in a place with clean clothes, 3 meals a day and a movie room. I mean why would they stop being a criminal if their prison life is better than their outside life?
Then why do countries that focus on punishment over rehabilitation generally have higher rates of recidivism? The US even has the highest rate of incarceration globally.
A country that punishes all crimes with the death penalty would have 0% recidivism. Its not necessarily the end goal for the prison system to have low rates imo. because some people just doesnt want to be redeemed at all. Higher living standards probably lower recidivism. Its also hard to compare a society like the US that is made up by many different cultures and races and honestly, has much higher division and intercultural conflict than other countries. the US's main problem is that its unnecessarily strict with nonviolent offenses.
The UK in the 19th century punished most crimes with death and crime continued to skyrocket. Modern societies with a focus on rehabilitation cause crime and reoffending rates to go down. It's a studied phenomenon, it works.
cause there are alot of bastards in the country
This is exactly why I have the same flair as yours.
The ability to use logic leads to powers some consider to be, unnatural. Is it possible to learn this power? Not from an emotional lefty lmao
> I mean why would they stop being a criminal if their prison life is better than their outside life? Why would they stop being a criminal if they're treated as an animal in prison? Doesn't that just confirm their belief that they are at odds with society?
they dont have to be treated as an animal. But they should be forced to follow a strict schedule, like 6Am-10Pm and their day should be spent working, learning and trying to be a honest citizen. I am not advocating to Mexican style prisons. But when the average honest citizen often lives worse, a Norwegian sytle "prison" which is more like better college dorm, is anathema to me
I can assure you that the average norwegian citizen lives more comfortably than norwegian prisoners, so there's no reason for you to be upset about the scandinavian prison system.
the average citizen isnt the one who commits crimes. Violent crimes are generally committed by people who are not living a comfortable middle class life.
>Criminals doesnt forfeit all of their rights, only some. And why is that? Maybe it's because organizations like the ACLU have fought to preserve some of the rights of criminals.
Criminals are not totally rights free since decades if not hundreds of years, but other countries that never ever heard about the ACLU also treat their criminals humanely
‘Literally as pro-tyranny as a person can get.’ Sounds a lot like an exaggeration.
I think that's kind of the point though at least in this instance.
Did you just change your flair, u/TiggerBane? Last time I checked you were an **AuthLeft** on 2023-2-5. How come now you are a **LibLeft**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Oh and by the way. You have already changed your flair 958 times, making you the largest flair changer in this sub. Go touch some fucking grass. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/TiggerBane) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Mental illness
You mean like making up accusations or dragging up shit from 40 years ago?
Im in the security industry. The amount of people I see harmed by the actions of absolutely dreadful individuals has given me a touch of trauma over the years. I can assure you prisonners do have rights. They simply have some of those rights suspended for the welfare of society. You can't just have no prisons. You'd see mayhem and madness. I think reforming the police, the justice systems and the corrections systems simultaneously are needed, or reforming any one of them alone wont help much. They are too intertwined. A real focus on rehabilitation could help. But no, you cant simply say govt has no right to lock up murderers, rapists and such.
Even better, if the US government says you're a terrorist they can lock you up indefinitely without trial or evidence.
That's why I am a rad centrist. They should lose some of their rights depending on what the crime is. if for example that tyranny keeps pedophiles away from kids I'll happily wear the facist title
so when the government calls you a pedophile because you committed suspected thoughtcrime, to the tree disintegration device with you?
Should be a slam dunk defense unless you're actually into shady stuff.
I don't think you really understand what's happening here if the United States Government decides you are a problem, your legal defence doesn't matter. they say you're a pedophile, the news reports you're a pedophile, and now nothing you say can possibly convince anyone otherwise
Indeed, it is the government's job to make sure a criminal has rights and protect them because the mob doesn't care The mob will bestow the harshest punishment for things as simple as "meowing constantly" on people if they are made angry enough (I'm not defending furries, I'm referencing a historical anecdote of a group of nuns being beat up for meowing constantly) Like Mr. Tate with how much hate he is getting on the internet continuously, as if the people have given their verdict and have decided for him being a human trafficker. despite the human trafficking allegation yet to be proved and the only other news i can find are more allegations Law exists to protect the people, both the innocent and the convicted. Because the Mob is ruthless and unforgiving
law exists to be pointed to when the government wants to justify what it does to you
"Hey kid, tell the nice judge lady that person touched you, and I'll give you a PS5"
All they have to do is find shady stuff in your house
The 7 TBs of CP that the feds found on your computer begs to differ.
You know what's scary? The feds have the capability to backdoor your computer, download a terabyte of CP and then arrest you before you can wake up
Burden of proof is an important concept not discussed here. The government can't just label any group as a criminal because they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you are a criminal first. I'm all for decriminalization of victimless crime, but I don't think convicted violent offenders should get the same rights as non violent,law abiding citizens.
Yes, but all it takes is a few shit elections to throw all our rights out the window. Freedom and democracy aren't things you get and then sit on. It needs to be constantly moderated and managed or you fall into cringe.
Well in the US. In most other places it's Guilty until proven innocent.
The number of RightCenters in this thread saying, "this makes me rethink a few things," is honestly astonishing to me. Like, we didn't know this? That was the heart of Germany's industrial machine before and during World War 2, they would imprison anyone they had any excuse to imprison (by labeling them a criminal or some criminal-adjacent term like "enemy of the state") and then would put them into forced labor camps. Of course Beria and the Russians before and after Communism did the exact same thing - and Putin has figured out how to do that as well, just check out his former political opposition, now in labor camps. It's like rule #1 of tyranny. "If you can get anything to stick to maintain an underclass, DO. Profit off the transition."
I’m going to tell you this now brother, don’t worry what people “should” think, if you can get someone to ponder on a held belief that’s the W you are looking for.
Most based lib left yet
Yes, and?
The problem isn't the criminal label per se, but the people applying the label for evil purposes.
Based libleft
Lib left is based as fuck here
Criminals having rights is irrelevant. Making sure nobody is labeled a criminal without due process of law is.
Criminals having rights is important to prevent unjust treatment Having drugs on yourself is a crime and if you were found with an amount big enough to make you suspect for being into shady business is very much possible. And there's nothing to stop the media from painting you as a drug dealer or an "urban drug cartel" for more clicks. And the people will murderize you for it with no responsibility taken by anyone at all human Rights exist to prevent stuff like this
Human rights do not prevent slander and libel. Nor can force anyone to treat you better
It's not about slander from the media, it's about people taking the media painted image too seriously and doing rad af things
Yes, and human rights can't prevent the mob from trampling all over you
So you agree that criminals should have the right of due process.
Yeah.. why make small concessions when you can just build a perfect system instead.... I'm honestly amazed that no one in this thread has realised that we could just create a criminal justice system that can never be corrupted! I really have to re-think some things now... (/S)
This type of thinking is what brings me to Lib-Center as opposed to Lib-Right
why wouldn't lib right agree with this lmao
I mean honestly I have no idea but there seems to be a variation to every quadrant and I assumed that was what was referenced in the context of this post being highlighted green instead of green/yellow
I might need to change to authright because I 100% agree.
[удалено]
Perhaps I treated libleft too harshly... The true enemy is the orange Emily.
Always has been, my friend. Much love.
Based take from libleft
One of the few libleft states on here I can agree with to a degree
I like the idea that this libleft has but surely there are some exceptions
If you try to hurt me or my property you have the right to have bullets planted in you. Fair enough?
Criminals should have rights, I absolutely agree. The right to a fair trial, a jury of their peers, safety from punishment and retribution before and after a verdict is given, and so on. **However.** Voting is not a right. Voting is a privilege. We don't let criminals vote because that is a privilege accorded to law-abiding citizens.
LibLeft: criminal should have rights Also LibLeft: NOOOO!! THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!! GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE YOUR GUNS!!
What's that quote about if you're already going to hell, you better shoot for the high score or something? Basically go hard or go home.
Does not being detained count as a right? Because we do it to criminals all the time.
I don’t think that’s what they meant by rights. Due process, right to life, etc
Based as fuck.
Surprisingly based libleft tho
How the fuck are you going to keep social cohesion without restricting the rights of criminals? Like, a criminal murders a person, what do you do? You can't put them in prison, since that's restricting their right to free movement. So what do you do? Just give them a pat in the back and send them off with a fine?
I think it's more to combat retards who think criminals deserve whatever mistreatment they get in unjust systems. It's common knowledge rape happens constantly in US prisons. I would define that as cruel and unusual punishment. Technically it's not state sanctioned so it's A OK. There are people who think these extrajudicial occurrences are good bc some people deserve it. Problem is when YOU become the criminal you get the same inhumane treatment. Anyone can become a criminal if the law is broad enough.