• sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.

    Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.

    • Uvine_Umbra@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:

      There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.

      Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.

      Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.

      Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.

      Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…

      Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.

      Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.

      No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)