maybe he grew on the job and changed his opinion. Maybe he was also a hard guy before, but killing all those people made a click in his mind. you would maybe change your opinion too when you peeled off enough epiderm of hands of criminals.
I'd never sign up for the job of torturing people. I couldn't do it. Likewise I wouldn't sign up for the job of being a butcher... or a surgeon... or a trashman.... or the guy who climbs to the top of a radio tower (those guys are crazy).
I fully recognize that these jobs are suitable, even desirable, for others though.
And That is a good thing, if everybody thought torture would be ok, we would torture people so theay admit they shoplifted.
No, you can't torture someone who's rights are intact. And torture for shoplifting would be a punishment that doesn't fit the crime.
You can't defend yourself from someone torturing you by torturing them back either, so I fail to see a circumstance where it is fair.
It's fair if they're guilty of torturing others for starters. Also if they've murdered many people intentionally.
Just because a criminal forfeits his rights doesn't mean someone has to take advantage of that. Unnecessarily harming someone who's committed a crime is just that, unnecessary.
Totally 100% agree. It's not necessary to do it just because you can. What I'm saying is that you can.
The pysical right you talking about:
1. So when i have a car accident, and the other have a broken leg (physical harm), could he/ the state harm me physically ?
Intentionally causing harm is not a proportionate response to accidentally being harmed.
2. I still miss apart from all the fundamental rights, the human dignity, not only the dignity of the criminal, but also yours.
That's because dignity is not a right. Otherwise you'd be violating your own rights by a taking a job that robbed you of your dignity. Some would argue that being a stripper or going on Fear Factor would be examples of you violating your own rights (to dignity) and should result in your incarceration (for you own good). This is part of the reason dignity as a right makes zero sense.
In the treatement , an eye for an eye, you lowering your dignity to the same level as those from the criminals (the same goes for torture, death penalities, or physical punishement, abuse)
If someone steals $200 from you, gets caught, and you force him to give you your $200 back, have you lowered your dignity to his level? No, because you didn't steal from him. He forfeited some of his own rights when he took your property. He committed a crime and you didn't - even though you performed the same action.
Also killing an innocent child to save others (numbers not important)? Do you approve.
Ends do not justify the means. I totally agree.
My problem is not with people's rights being forfeited when they violate someone else's rights, but with what we actually do afterwards. "Punishing" those who violate rights is irrelevant to stopping the rights from being violated again by that person. The reason you "give the knife back" is not to punish the person but to stop him from killing you.
Could be to stop them from killing others. This person has demonstrated a fundamental lack of recognition of the rights of others - and/or a refusal to observe those rights. What to do with him once he has forfeited his rights is society's choice (provided that the response is proportionate). But executing someone who has chosen to murder is a proportionate and justifiable response. That doesn't mean we HAVE to, it doesn't even mean it's a good idea (there's a standard of proof argument that suggests it isn't), but it does mean that it's a legitimate response that does not violate human rights.
Tank : yes your opinion is valid and of value, as is everybodies opinion.
No, everyone's opinion is not valid and of value. That's not even possible. Opinions often contradict, they can't all be valid. Some opinions are based upon irrationality. Those opinions are not of value to anyone but the person having them.
