Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunkerb.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!bunkerb!mary From: mary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations Message-ID: <413@bunkerb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 13:53:18 EST Article-I.D.: bunkerb.413 Posted: Mon Dec 31 13:53:18 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:30:41 EST References: <285@sftri.UUCP> <1245@hou4b.UUCP> <284@sftri.UUCP> <412@bunkerb.UUCP> <289@sftri.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 47 Re my comments on the rights and loss thereof of those convicted of violent crimes: > This brings up the question that I really had when the article said > that a rapist had forfeited his rights: if he has no rights, why > not just execute him rather than imprison him? In this case, we > seem to be saying that rape is a crime equalling and, in some cases > surpassing, murder. Is that what she meant to say, or am I > just reading it wrong? Is this what people feel? > > Mark Modig I was trying to broaden the discussion to include other types of violent crime, and make no judgements about which crime is more severe. The point I was trying to make is that a person who has been convicted of a violent crime against another person (including assault, rape, and murder) is no longer entitled to many of the rights which that person had previously enjoyed, due to the nature of the crime. Whether or not the right to life is among those rights is *extremely* debatable, and I really don't want to argue that point right now. However, the idea is to punish the offender by removing sufficient rights to make the offender aware of the severity of the transgression. The criminal *may* have a right to live, but not the right to the freedom to go out and inflict the same harm on another human being, for starters. Think about what takes place when a violent crime is committed. A person has been both physically and psychologically damaged. This damage was inflicted, intentionally and knowingly, by another person. What kind of person would perform such an act? What about someone who performs such acts repeatedly, or with extreme cruelty? Do you really believe that this is a warm, loving, caring person? Does this person deserve to be treated as if they had done nothing wrong? Not in my opinion, and this is why I suggested that the per- petrators of violent crimes should expect to forfeit many of the rights due to ordinary folk, because what they have done makes them less than a true human being. As such, they are entitled to less than the full bill of rights which the rest of humanity enjoys (theoretically, anyway). Determining just what rights are to be curtailed is obviously a very sticky question, and there will be as many opinions on it as there are people on the net. I don't want to attempt to start to develop a code of punishment here, but I will say that I think that people who commit violent acts against other people should be aware that they are then responsible for the consequences of those acts, and that those consequences are not always nice, nor should they be. Neither is a murder, a rape or an assault. MJR Shurtleff ....!bunkerb!mary