Human Rights

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

I was taught that the three central duties of life were to pay your taxes, respect your parents, and be good to your friends. One of my best friends is the son of a diplomat, born at our capital city, college educated, widely traveled, and published. He adopts the old-fashioned European custom of, ahem, not over-bathing. I don't let it bother me.

With respect to duties, some would say the term has levels of meanings. For example, some would say humanity has a duty to reproduce, making it a choice, and still others would say it's a biological imperative. Is there a difference?

It's only imperative if one values his/her bloodline continuing.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I was taught that the three central duties of life were to pay your taxes, respect your parents, and be good to your friends. One of my best friends is the son of a diplomat, born at our capital city, college educated, widely traveled, and published. He adopts the old-fashioned European custom of, ahem, not over-bathing. I don't let it bother me.

With respect to duties, some would say the term has levels of meanings. For example, some would say humanity has a duty to reproduce, making it a choice, and still others would say it's a biological imperative. Is there a difference?

Not taking care of your hygiene is a European thing? Last time I checked, Europe consisted of quite a few countries, with different habbits of just about everything.

 

[Dotini]

"Old-fashioned" goes back to the medieval. Even kings bathed only a few times a year, and then only for weddings and feasts. The finest castles had walls streaked from the privies and garderobes, and the moats were cesspools. Peasants suffered even less hygiene. Only Teutonic Knights had castles with privy towers.

My friend, son of a State Department field officer, grew up and acquired habits traveling in the Europe of the 50's and 60's. Back then, recovering from WWII, many if not most countries were devastated from war and impoverished. Plumbing and soap came dear for many.

 

[Carbonox]

I'm fairly positive the "duty of reproduction" belongs to the past by now.

 

[Danoff]

The only reason we'd be talking about "duties" in a thread about human rights is if your human rights do not protect you from having to perform those duties. That means that if you don't want to preform those duties, you can be forced to do so.

If we have a "duty" to reproduce, then if you don't want to reproduce, others can force you to do so. I doubt anyone in this thread will take that position. As a result, we do not have a duty to reproduce. In fact, we do not have any duties. We must only observe the rights of others, and even then, only if we require our own rights to be observed.

If this is not what is meant by "duties", then I have missed the relevance to the discussion.

 

[Keef]

I was taught that the three central duties of life were to pay your taxes, respect your parents, and be good to your friends.

I respect that you were taught this way but I still hope you've formed better values as an adult. What if taxes are illegal or immoral? What if your parents teach you things that are wrong or immoral?

Specifically the parent issue. I believe parents should give their children tools to learn on their own, not force feed them. I don't think children should be required to obey their parents at all costs; after all, it wasn't their choice to be born. I think that if parents are willing to create life they should be willing to sacrifice their own to make sure their offspring are successful. I don't feel like I owe my elders anything except to show them that their efforts to allow me to success were not wasted. That doesn't include sacrificing my most prime years to succeed in order to support them past their usefulness to society. Then again, maybe I haven't fully integrated that aspect into the rest of my philosophies.

With respect to duties, some would say the term has levels of meanings. For example, some would say humanity has a duty to reproduce, making it a choice, and still others would say it's a biological imperative. Is there a difference?

Duties are contrived. Biological processes occur independent of any form of intelligence. Intelligence is only able to block that biological drive. But then, if humans were required to reproduce that would certainly be a violation on one's liberty if they didn't want to, and that's before they sacrifice their property and potentially risk their lives to make it happen.

 

[Liquid]

Now, it is a particular case in question, but a recent ruling ruled that life sentences breach human rights.

Again, this is only for a specific case, but I feel that this could set a precedent.

 

[DK]

Well, that doesn't guarantee that the perpetrators of horrific crimes will be free after 25 years, but that probably won't stop the Daily Fail and the Waily Express from screaming about the "meddling EU".

 

[Danoff]

Now, it is a particular case in question, but a recent ruling ruled that life sentences breach human rights.

Again, this is only for a specific case, but I feel that this could set a precedent.

You lose rights when you fail to observe the rights of others. So a life sentence for someone who has, for example, murdered an innocent person, cannot violate the criminal's rights - he has lost them.

 

[Liquid]

I agree totally, Danoff.

Life sentences, or whole life tariffs as they're legally known here, should mean life. It's weird how that a life sentence over here means life, but after a minimum of x years, the criminal can appeal for parole.

 

[Carbonox]

In my country, life sentence basically means 12 years. Or 6 if you're a first time offender. Make it 3 if you behave well in prison. For us, criminals' rights for freedom have always been extremely important.

A bit offtopic, but just wanted to mention for some silly reason.

(Yes, that was a bit exaggerated. However, many people are receiving those ridiculously short sentences for crimes that should result in a life sentence, with the first time offender and good behavior bonuses further reducing their time behind bars.)

 

[Tornado]

So if I'm reading that right, it just means that there can be no more equivalents to the "life without possibility of parole" rulings anymore?

 

[DK]

I think so Tornado, and it's highly unlikely the likes of Rose West would pass a parole hearing anyway.

 

[Liquid]

I think in British legal history there have only been three or four whole life tariffs, which in colonial English is life without possibility of parole.

In 99.9% of life sentences, there is a minimum tariff.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Human rights are not granted by the state. The Bill of Rights is not a matter of humanity. It is a manner of existence within a state.

 

[Keef]

So if I'm reading that right, it just means that there can be no more equivalents to the "life without possibility of parole" rulings anymore?

I think so Tornado, and it's highly unlikely the likes of Rose West would pass a parole hearing anyway.

That could lead to more death sentence convictions in states that still allow it.

 

[Liquid]

That could lead to more death sentence convictions in states that still allow it.

Something I, personally, am firmly against.

 

[Tornado]

That could lead to more death sentence convictions in states that still allow it.

I don't think I understand.

 

[Liquid]

I don't think I understand.

If it wasn't possible to cage someone in gaol indefinitely, why not just execute them? Same end result.

Callous, but effective.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

For us, criminals' rights for freedom have always been extremely important.

...And for good reason. Finland has one of the lowest rates of recidivism in the world because they treat criminals like normal human beings.

Life sentences don't work, and neither does the current U.K penal system as a whole.

 

[Danoff]

...And for good reason. Finland has one of the lowest rates of recidivism in the world because they treat criminals like normal human beings.

If they treat criminals like normal human beings, there is no law in Finland, because a criminal cannot be arrested.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

If they treat criminals like normal human beings, there is no law in Finland, because a criminal cannot be arrested.

Normal human beings are not above the law. What I meant by what I said is that you don't lock people away and expect good things to come from it - or at least you shouldn't if you have any sense.

 

[Keef]

If it wasn't possible to cage someone in gaol indefinitely, why not just execute them? Same end result.

Callous, but effective.

Makes good TV too.

 

[FoolKiller]

...And for good reason. Finland has one of the lowest rates of recidivism in the world because they treat criminals like normal human beings.

There is a zero recidivism rate among life without parole sentences, and that's kind of their purpose.

Life sentences don't work, and neither does the current U.K penal system as a whole.

So, life sentences don't prevent murderers from killing more innocents?

Normal human beings are not above the law. What I meant by what I said is that you don't lock people away and expect good things to come from it - or at least you shouldn't if you have any sense.

What's the point of a penal system that doesn't penalize crimes?

 

[Liquid]

The British justice system could work, and work damn well, but it, and much of the British executive, are strangled by the European Court Of Human Rights. While noble in purpose, it doesn't do justice. If you pardon the expression.

My own observation is that victims' rights play second fiddle to criminals', in order to satisfy not seeming barbaric or cruel. And I hate that.

What's the situation in the US? Are human rights laws equally improper in useage and interpretation?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

There is a zero recidivism rate among life without parole sentences, and that's kind of their purpose.

Which is forced, so hardly counts. Personally I'd much rather see reformed criminals being returned to society to make positive contributions rather than writing them off and locking them away for the rest of their days.

So, life sentences don't prevent murderers from killing more innocents?

Only in the worst way possible. Locking them away isn't solving the problem, it's ignoring it. I should add, I don't agree that a criminal forfeits their rights for doing wrong, no matter what they did.

What's the point of a penal system that doesn't penalize crimes?

I never said anything about not penalising criminals, just not locking them away like we currently do. We've done the same things for centuries and we keep getting the same poor results.

 

[FoolKiller]

Which is forced, so hardly counts. Personally I'd much rather see reformed criminals being returned to society to make positive contributions rather than writing them off and locking them away for the rest of their days.

What about the guys who don't reform? Guys in gangs have little choice, particularly if they are in a blood in/blood out kind if gang. If they reform they die. The system preventing them from reforming isn't the penal system.

And you will always have guys who just don't reform. They cannot peacefully operate in a civil society.

Only in the worst way possible. Locking them away isn't solving the problem, it's ignoring it.

Well, then let's figure out a way to solve Charlie Manson or Timothy McVeigh. Assuming we can take those kinds of scum and turn them into ideal citizens, how do they reintegrate into society? Who wants to hire terrorists and mass murderers? Who will work with them? Who will want them as a neighbor?

We try the reform thing with pedophiles, letting them back out after treatment and the moment someone realizes who they are their life is destroyed, sometimes ending in suicide. And those are the few that actually do reform.

Your shiny world view sounds great for crimes of passion or necessity and things that wouldn't be deserving of a life sentence. But would you raise a family next to a "reformed" rapist or multiple murderer?

I should add, I don't agree that a criminal forfeits their rights for doing wrong, no matter what they did.

But that is what gives us human rights, the ability to recognize and respect them. It is why animals don't have the same rights we do, and are food. It is the nature of self-realization and what separates us from the rest of nature.

I never said anything about not penalising criminals, just not locking them away like we currently do. We've done the same things for centuries and we keep getting the same poor results.

You mentioned Finland. I've seen their "prisons." They are nicer than my college dorm. That isn't penalizing them. Why not just put everyone under house arrest?

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Continued from the Castro thread.

I supposed you are right. Society certainly agrees with this.

Where I have problem with it, it's the impression I have that while prison is a huge inconvenience for criminals, it lacks in accountability.

I'm not asking for "bullet in their heads", or eye for an eye, but I'm not sure about hanging out in camp for days or years is exactly just. It is inhumane to deny prisoners healthcare, although millions of Americans who never harmed anybody couldn't afford to go see a doctor. You can't "force" prisoners to work against their will, but yeah, everybody else is forced to work, because if they don't, they would starve.

I guess I just don't see it as black & white as you do. *shrug*

They are already being held against their will regardless because of their crimes.


Refusing to work is not an option. Its simple...like the modern world. Work and you get paid. You then do what you want with it. Don't work and you starve...your choice. Some may choose to go that route however. Take even more away from them. That's their choice.

Really? So now we're at the point of starving inmates to force them into working?

Very few people are forced to work in the modern world. Not working in the U.K or U.S, or most other developed countries, won't see you starve unless you choose to, because there are so many charities, soup kitchens and food banks around. People choose to work because they want more from life than simply surviving, not because they would starve if they didn't.

Would you really want to live in a country that denied inmates access to healthcare or food? Do you really think that is a good direction to be heading in?

 

[Slash]

Continued from the Castro thread.





Really? So now we're at the point of starving inmates to force them into working?

Very few people are forced to work in the modern world. Not working in the U.K or U.S, or most other developed countries, won't see you starve unless you choose to, because there are so many charities, soup kitchens and food banks around. People choose to work because they want more from life than simply surviving, not because they would starve if they didn't.

Would you really want to live in a country that denied inmates access to healthcare or food? Do you really think that is a good direction to be heading in?

I see your point. I don't necessarily think it's the best direction to head in but think of the benefits that it could bring to society if they worked. More would get done in less time for example.

 

[a6m5]

Really? So now we're at the point of starving inmates to force them into working?

It does sound horrible, I agree. And just so you guys know, I'm more thinking this thing aloud, as it's not something I put a lot of thought into, I don't think most of us do.

Having said that, look at it from this perspective: If a criminal would rather harm you or your family, steal from them, etc., before they'd work to get paid, is it inhumane if they starved to death, because they simply couldn't be bothered to earn food? Before they go to prison, or in prison?

I realize this is totally unrealistic & extreme, but if someone was so lazy, they don't want to pick up the utensil & feed themselves, should the tax payer hire someone to spoon-feed them?

It's all philosophical, but that's sort of where I'm coming from. Is it the system starving you, or you starving yourself?

Very few people are forced to work in the modern world. Not working in the U.K or U.S, or most other developed countries, won't see you starve unless you choose to, because there are so many charities, soup kitchens and food banks around. People choose to work because they want more from life than simply surviving, not because they would starve if they didn't.

I think we are approaching the gray area here. People do starve(food bank & soup kitchen do run short), freeze, or die of heat exhaustion in this country.

Would you really want to live in a country that denied inmates access to healthcare or food? Do you really think that is a good direction to be heading in?

I'd have to say "no". Like I said, I am not at all happy with the way the things are(especially healthcare), but I don't claim to have answers. Even if I got the say in putting prisoners to work, I wouldn't have the heart to actually starve someone.

Edit: I accidentally tripped over a old post by Anderton, then a hilarious reply by Famine.





Haven't seen Anderton on here in years!