Rights, or lack thereof

I guess I'll be the one to continue this. I think that if you are convicted of a felony such as murder, you have no rights anymore.You've shown you don't care about the rules society has set around individuals, and you should not be able to be a functioning member of society. You were given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--if you take these from someone else, should you not have it taken from yourself? It's the same as voting if you're a criminal--if you can't make any good choices about your own life, so why should you be given the opportunity to contribute to decisions made for the better of society?

Because, Hammurabi Jr., those decisions are going to affect you, and if something affects you you should have a say in it.

Taking someone else's rights doesn't mean you don't have any rights! If I feed your seventh son to an alligator at the Martian zoo, would you feed my seventh son to another alligator at the Jovian zoo? No, you'd put me in jail (on Phobos) so that I can't do the same to anyone else. You'd be taking away my right to liberty in the process, but that is an UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECT of separating me from society. Deliberately taking away another person's rights is never okay.

We are defined by who we are and what we are, not what we do. Even if I murder people, I'm still a living person, which means I deserve certain rights. It's society's job to fight for those rights in my place-- that's why society was made.
It's like individuals are the children of society-- even if your kids are mean to you, you still have to be nice to them; even if they don't respect your rights, you still have to protect theirs. Now, obviously society can't function unless the vast majority of individuals support it. However, not supporting society is like not tipping a waiter in the U.S.: It's bad, it's irresponsible, and if everybody did it the waiters couldn't make enough money to support themselves, but it is legal and it is a person's choice whether or not they do it.

Forgive my boundless ignorance, but who the heck is Hammurabi Jr.?

How would feeding your seventh son to a alligator at the Jovian zoo be taking away your rights? That would merely be revenge. If you threw my seventh son to an alligator at the Martian Zoo,(and aren't 7th sons supposed to have powers? If so, they would be well versed in the force, and would not let themselves be eaten by an alligator, even if it is a Martian or Jovian one,) yes, you would be put into jail, and your rights would be taken away, because you commited a heinous crime.

If it's society's job to protect you, and you were a member of society, shouldn't you've helped protect the person you killed? Why should society help someone who might thank them by killing more people?
What you're saying is that even if a sadistic killer is roaming rampant through the streets, they deserved to be treated just as well and as kindly as an innoncent person?

And why would society want to be supported by a disfunctional person?It wouldn't do any good.

Let me give you a true scenario: a father learns his daughter was raped, murders the man who did it, and gets a life sentance. Is that fair? By your laws, he has no more rights.

Also, what if a jerk gets fired from a workplace and comes back the next day to kill his boss? Has he lost all his rights?

What if you kill ten people with families on the oppisate side in a war? Is that murder?

What if you're drunk, and kill someone? DId you lose your rights? (and I mean really drunk, not "buzzed".)

What if you kill a crime lord who already "forfit his own rights" by ordering the killings of/killing people? Have you lost your rights?

What if you walk by someone being murdered in an ally? Have you lost your rights then?

What if you're a doctor or nures who calculates the medicine wrong and kills a patient? Is that murder? Have you lost your rights?

Do you want me to go on?

@ Micah:

You're Hammurabi Jr.! Hammurabi was the dude who invented the "eye for an eye" laws; you'll learn about him in sophomore history class.
The goal of society is to protect as many rights as humanly possible. If I kill your seventh son (assuming he doesn't use the force), society deems me 'dangerous' and puts me in jail to prevent me from killing others. They have to take away my right to liberty in order to put me in jail-- it's an unintended side affect of protecting the rest of society from dangerous me. However, I still have the right to free speech, etc., because it is still society's job to protect as many of my rights as it can.


@ Jacob:

It is fair. He was enacting vigilante justice, which is not fair and not legal. That's how random people got lynched. Justice should have come from the courts (society) and not a biased individual. If you don't have the self control to refrain from killing someone who didn't even try to kill you first, then you are dangerous and should either be sent to a psychiatrist or separated from society (a.k.a. jail). However, as dangerous as someone may be, they still have rights because they are still a person.

The "jerk", as you say, hasn't lost his rights; he's just crazy and needs to be put in an anger management class/lose his license to carry a concealed weapon (aaarg). It might be necessary, for the sake of civilization, to revoke his right to bear arms. However, any right that does not allow him to kill people should not be revoked.

Yes, it is murder. Unlike the government, I don't really make distinction between war and non-war killing. It's not as bad if two people both have guns and are both soldiers, but it's no less murder than killing a random civilian.

Yeah. When you're drunk, you still have to have some tiny idea of what you're going to do. If I get drunk and then shoot someone, I can't blame EVERYTHING on the booze. There had to have been some tiny spark of animosity towards whoever I killed first, and then being drunk took care of the rest. If you mean involuntarily (running over someone while drunk driving, for example) then it's more complicated. I'd be guilty of getting drunk and then driving, but I would not be guilty of killing someone because their death HAPPENED as a result of me drunk driving-- as opposed to them actually getting KILLED by me. (why the heck do I keep using myself in these examples???)

You and the crime lord are equally guilty. It is NOT YOUR JOB to be a vigilante and enact justice for someone else; that's why we have courts and jails and all that fun stuff. If you kill a killer you are just as guilty as the killer was.

Being murdered in an ally, Jacob? *raises eyebrows* I'm going to assume you meant "alley". You haven't lost your rights, you've just failed to act.

Calculates wrong as in by accident? Or as in sneakily killing them on purpose? If it's by accident then you aren't guilty of anything and you are not dangerous (you just need to ditch the abacus and use a slide rule next time). Therefore all of your rights should still be protected.

I agree about war - while it is much better than killing a civilian, primarily because the're also shooting at you - it's still murder.

What you're saying about how it's not your job to enact justice - who cares? What I see in our laws is just laws saying "We saw this happen, we know it will happen again, so we're just going to say Don't do it becaus we figure that way people who wouldn't do this anyway know not to do it!" That's our legal system, and it's stupid. And, if you're saying it's not our job to enact justice, then whos is it? If evrey civilian walks around saying "I don't have to worry about it," then who will? What if the lawyers and judges say "It's our job to do something, but we can't go out seeking all the wrongs in our wrong-filled world, so we'll just wait till someone brings it to us." That would work fine, unless evreyone else was saying "It's not my job to report this." If you see a child or cat stuck in a tree, and you have a ladder, will you say "It's not my job - let the parents or firemen handle it."?

What would you do if you saw someone get ready to jump of a skyscraper? Likely, you would say "Hey! What are you doing? Stop that!" and grab him/her, etc. How is doing that diffrent from stepping in to save someone from being beaten to death in an alley (or ally)?

I'm not saying it's right to kill someone in war, but if it's for a cause you truly care about, would you still view it as murder? If you were protecting your family, for instance, would you still think that you are a murderer for killing a man that tried to kill you?

Who cares? Um--the judges who are trying you in court? And, if I may point out, your 'utopia' relies on the same 'flawed' system you are describing here.You're far too pessimistic, my boy. You need to lighten up. Let's put smile on that face... Whose job is it to enact justice? ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH YEARS OF COLLEGE TO ATTAIN A LAW DEGREE, but other than that, not many people. And we're talking about taking the inforcement of law into your own hands. There's nothing wrong with reporting something that should be tried. Not a very good analogy there, Jacob. If you have a ladder, of course, you should save the child or cat (unless you're allergic to either one.). But we're talking about going after someone, and hurting them, because you feel it's your job. There's a difference between saving someone, and getting revenge.

It is different, my dear man, because, in the skyscraper scenario, there is no danger to yourself. So, any altruistic man wouldn't hesitate to act. But, in the ALLEY scenario, you could just as easily end up getting mugged, or even killed, as the person you are trying to save. You must say to yourself, 'What would I accomplish by doing this? Would it help the person, or make the situation even worse?' The most logical thing? Find the police. Immediately. Ya know, the guys who spent years of their lives training for the type of scenario you just witnessed?

Now, I don't agree with all of Emma's arguments to your scenarios, so I'll put up my own:

Yes. He is still charged with manslaughter, and taking the law into his own hands.

Yes, he has lost his rights, because he killed a man. Most likely, the boss fired him on legitimate terms, and is not at fault. A man who is that violence prone should be put into jail, and his rights revoked.

Depends. See above argument. Also, when soldiers return home after a war, do we try them for killing people?

Also depends. If you deliberately did it, than yes, you should be put in jail, and your rights revoked. But, if you never intended to kill the person (i.e., you accidentally ran over the person,) then you should still be charged with being drunk, but you should not totally be charged as harshly as if you had actually killed the person. In my opinion, if you kill a person while drunk, it still means you are capable of killing a person, even without the drink, and you should be put into jail, your rights revoked.

Yes. You still have killed a man. What you're talking about is revenge, not justice.

No. Just because you don't have the will to act doesn't mean you should be tried. Self preservation, my good man.

No, if you made an innocent mistake. Yes, if you intentionally killed them.