Why do prisoners have rights?

I think that the best athletes from all the prisons should form a Professional Basketball team, Baseball team, Football team, etc.

Prisoners always get the same treatment as other counties. Islam is torturing captured Israeli, U.S., etc. war criminals in the same way the United States is torturing the captured freedom fighters in Guantanemo Bay.

The U.S is shit. our whole system is screwed up..they can charge you and try anything they can without proff.. they try to say you are innecent until proven guilty..shit you are guilty till innecent..for instance...say in a rape case.. some girl gets mad and doesn't wanna look like a slut.. so she says yeah this dude raped me..they will take you to a detective usually and he interviews the two of you and determines weither or not he wants to charge you.. so without any proof of you even having sex with the girl..let alone raping her..they can.. lock you up..set you a rediculously high bond(which will cost you thousands of dollars to get out)and then you are forced to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer.. or just get a public pretender and go to jail for a long time..and then your name is also hurt just because of the charge.. and you may loose your job and relationships everything.. then come to find out in the end the girl says.."o well yeah sorry i lied" and now your sitin there thousands of dollars in debt and no job. just barely living because some slut wanted to lie..and without proof they can do all that

dgdgdsg wrote:

wow, i dont know where to start.

number one, my ancestors where taken on a boat and shipped over to america in as slaves. My parents and their parents delt with most cruel punishment. And you have the nerve to talk about why our parents had to harder than yours. The nerve of you spoiled shits.

So you are using this as an excuse 200 years after the fact? Sad.

Guys, this thread is done. The question has already been answered. Prisoners have rights because we have the rule of law. That's it. No point to continue arguing.

Mr. Price wrote:

Guys, this thread is done. The question has already been answered. Prisoners have rights because we have the rule of law. That's it. No point to continue arguing.

What if the laws were changed?

Rule of law has to do with us having a set of laws which govern how we behave. I wasn't appealing to the laws per se. I was appealing to the rule of law in general which is the cornerstone of society.

If we start introducing arbitrary distinctions and exceptions in regard to the rule of law (especially in regard to rights) then we nullify the benefit we get from creating them.

God told me this a second ago:

Prisoners have rights because we have the rule of law and if we removed their rights and changed the law then we will create a prescient for removing rights. When rights can be removed they are no longer seen as inalienable as mentioned by the constitution.

Of course, since we ARE granted certain inalienable rights by our creator (whatever the hell this is) then they can't be removed.

So it was written so shall it be.

Your "thread-ending" argument is just a cop out. The question goes deeper than your answer. Assuming that these rights are so flushed out in the Constitution (err...Bill of Rights, you mean?) that they cannot be changed--something I'm not entirely convinced of, but I'm no legal expert--the question remains, why were they included as rights in the first place? And if you want to say that "our creator" bestowed these rights upon us, and the Framers just transcribed His word, why did God in his infinite wisdom decide that these rights were inalienable?

Your answer is practically satisfying--it tells us why, in our current world, prisoners must retain these rights--but it's not very philosophically satisfying. For the record, I agree that prisoners SHOULD be treated humanely; as for why, I find an earlier, terse response more to the point: because they're human.

Everyone, including prisoners, criminals, make bad decisions which get them into trouble.

THey have the right to make amends & start over, have a second chance...YEAH I KNOW, I'M NOT A COP OR A SAM WATERSTON TYPE but I believe in my convictions here.

Have a good evening.

I don't make the leap that the law is always aligned with right and wrong.

A largely irrelevant aside: In the long view (a view that some in your camp try to discredit just as quickly as those opposing you throw out the "race card") "your" culture (mien too) has not always valued right and wrong, as our checkered past of oppression proves.

I hesitatingly agree, with the assertion that both cultural imperialism and racism DO exist. There needs to more value placed on education and self-improvement, and we need to be allowed to say this. Simultaneously, though, some people need to be more willing to acknowledge the great privileges that have given them a leg up in life.

Have you considered that some of those you criticize actually CAN distinguish right from wrong, but given the circumstances of their lives, just don't give a f***? I'm not excusing this attitude, just pointing out the condescension in your language.

Well, given that they have emigrated to our shores in the first place, I would guess that they are already a product of a culture that values progress, growth, and aspirations.

Racism DOES still exist.

No, I don't. I agree. But I don't think this observation alone is enough, or is even productive.

We need to examine the root cause of this culture. It seems obvious to me that this cause is a long history of racism and oppression. For many years that justice that you so value was not adequately served, and resentment still lingers. An iron fist of justice will not erase that resentment.

Is a person accountable for their own decision to break the law? Of course. But can mitigating factors--like privilege or lack thereof--contribute to this decision? I think that seems equally obvious.

I'm not suggesting those born into poverty should be given free reign to do what they please. What I am suggesting is twofold:

1) A harsh criminal justice system will not "teach" people to behave, especially when, due to circumstances enumerated above, it continues to punish minorities disproportionate to their numbers (if not their crimes).

2) The problems of racism, poverty, crime, etc., etc., will not be fixed by the privileged continuing to lecture the less fortunate about the shortcomings of their culture. Real action and real change is necessary from both sides, the haves and the have nots.

that would be too good for the bush/cheney cabal..

round em up and send em to the hague

Amen...this has been done way too many times... Any women out there can say this and you are f***ed...and unless you have 50 grand you can be in jail months till your court date...its all bs. So this is a good reason to never cheat or make your girl mad...

Looking at your name you'd think you might know something about economics. Like cost/benefit analysis. Like if you raise the costs of committing a crime higher than the benefit gained of committing a crime, it is less likely to happen. If an increased cost is your idea of "living in fear" then I guess "living in fear" makes sense.

Also, a ton more innocent people die because of crimes committed than the number of innocent people who are wrongly punished. By having higher costs (resulting in lower crime rate) the number of crimes and innocent victims are reduced. So the net effect would be saved innocent lives. Yeah, it would be horrible if you're one of the wrongly accussed, but it would also be just as horrible to be the victim of a violent crime.

Also, back to cost/benefit analysis. If less money is placed into being nice to criminals, that money can be placed into our education system instead, raising the opportunity cost for people who may be tempted into committing a crime. Meaning less crime.

If you're going to say you're an economist, at least use economic reasoning when you're trying to prove a point.

I don't have time to respond at the moment but because I AM an economist (which many on this board can confirm given my posting history) I will say that your little analysis below is FAR from how an economist would actually tackle this problemfor one you state, well a few will be wrongly punished... well what is the cost of that, believe it or not economists have developed ways to value how much that 'costs' society, an issue you explicitly skirtin addition, you say higher penalty means less crime... actually that is not the whole story... it is not clear what the optimal punishment is based on this basis... how effective of a deterrent is harsher penalties - have you done studies? why do people commit crimes? the death penalty has proved to not be a deterrent? what is the goal of the justice system - to have prisoners become producing members of society? well on cost benefit analysis as you say then 'coddling' prisoners so they become productive post jail time might be the optimal strategy...so before you call out an actual economist... think about your simplistic approach to this problem and realize that there are a few levels of complexity to any problem like thisbesides in the end, even though I AM an economist, there are things in life that I actually consider outside of economics - wow shocking I know

I hear you (and, really, agree), but obeying what society has deemed as law is what keeps you out of jail (in line with the OP question); i.e., while I may DISAGREE with a law, I will likely not DISOBEY it.

My past includes both sides: some of my ancestors were "enslaved," others were "oppressors" (I am sure); given my third-gen immigrant background, I claim neutrality.

Yes: but my "leg up" was NOT a "silver spoon" or the like: my leg up was not ACTIVE, rather it was the ABSENCE of negative forces (we will disagree here, i.e., what I deem a "level playing field" others will deem already skewed). My "advantage" were the lack of impediments (and, yes, some groups still suffer impediments, but I argue that those impediments are not insurmountable; "adapt and overcome")

That is a main difference: they should always care.

Agreed: they are highly motivated (leading to skewed stereotypes, btw. I have heard from some immigrant groups something like "you should see the kinds of ppl we left behind!"

Yes: but laws generally forbid active discrimination, and I think/hope we can agree that we no longer see overt signs such as separate water fountains/businesses/sports teams etc. Indeed, I would argue that school segregation is now a matter of individual choice (and clearly NOT a government/legal goal).

its impediment to success is, these days, only marginal; I posit that an individual's culture plays a much larger role in the success that individual achieves. Have you a better theory?[/quote]

I disagree: acknowledge the past, but then move the frigg on! Why are SOME able to overcome? Why did Colin Powell, Oprah Winfrey, Chris Rock, Barack Obama, my mgr bud at Vanguard, my other bud the school principal, another bud the business owner, all the African Americans in my town succeed IF THE WHOLE RACIST NATION IS AGAINST THEM? Why, when faced with the same obstacles as all others of "their group" do some succeed? It must be something OTHER than the obstacles. The "long history of racism and oppression" need not apply to them? The got over their "lingering resentment?"

Here I hold a purely conservative view: jail is to punish, not to teach.

EXACTLY: and in REAL life, I do NOT lecture--I do not say a word, nay, DARE not say a word. So...what do *I* do? I focus on me an mine, teaching/guiding those around me--in business, church, life, social organizations, what have you--as best I can what tools are needed for success, why obeying the law is worthwhile, why giving back to the local community is essential, while gratitude for being alive (given the alternative) should not be that hard to find.

In REAL life--I do not CONDEMN or JUDGE or even NOTE the "shortcomings of [one's] culture"; I IGNORE it.

You wanna live gangsta? It's a free country--go right ahead. You are free to choose ANY culture/lifestyle you want--but you are NOT then free to blame those who choose a DIFFERENT culture, one that, say, holds academic achievement, skills acquisition, and/or self-improvement above other pursuits (e.g., sports, music, or "keepin' it real").

In REAL life, I create jobs: if you WANT one of these jobs, please acquire the skills (and adopt the dress/attitude/demeanor) necessary: if you have not done so, then you do not want the job. I get 30 resumes for every position--I will set a minimum threshold and then choose the one I want (and I, indeed, will make allowances as I see fit): thing is, I have, in all my years, received about THREE acceptable resumes from African American candidtates (and hired each).

So: if I am barred from criticisizing/critiquing one's chosen lifestyle, how am I supposed to prepare youth for high-paying, satisfying, productive work (ESPECIALLY when such work--or the education or the demeanor--will be deemed "acting white"?).

Answer: not my problem.

From my perspective: the whole academic/business world is currently set up to help ANY willing/able minority (and will make LOTS of allowances)--but NONE come looking.

I cannot/won't seek out the PARENTS of these youths--and the parents are the very ones who, on one hand, decry "gentrification" and on the other demand that SOMEONE "stop the killing" in their neighborhoods.

I say again: move.

Whew.

Maybe I came across as a little close minded, but I'm not trying to "cop-out" of anything. Considering that 99% of the posts on lets-run aren't geared to rational discussion I have responded to the appropriate context. It sounds bad, but I'm giving the the audience what it wants.

What else would you expect from a thread that is titled "why do prisoners have rights?" The first post didn't ask an audience concerned with the real answer.

I responded in kind. I gave the most direct and tangible answer that I could. Your points are duly noted, and I agree there are some deep philosophical questions remaining to be asked. But, until Let's Run changes it's name to Let's Philosophize I have to stand by the statement that the "reason" why, at least as far as in the context of what everyone here seems to be looking for, prisoners have rights is we have the Rule of Law.

We have laws people. That's why prisoners have rights. And as you so nicely put it: we have laws because we are human.

Mr. Price wrote:

It sounds bad, but I'm giving the the audience what it wants.

I'm in the audience, and it's not what I want.

Make your points, just don't claim that the thread is "over" once you've graced us with your wisdom.

Hey, again. Sorry if I've came across all wrong to you. I've posted with the "this thread is over" attitude for a reason: To stop playtime before people stated acting dumb. I don't have all the answers. I just have enough of one to - hopefully - get people to be satisfied with an answer and shut up early for a change.

Informed silence is a virtue.

I'll go ahead and listen to my own words and shut up now.