Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations Message-ID: <294@sftri.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 12:25:34 EST Article-I.D.: sftri.294 Posted: Wed Jan 2 12:25:34 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 07:33:17 EST References: <285@sftri.UUCP> <1245@hou4b.UUCP> <284@sftri.UUCP> <412@bunkerb.UUCP> <289@sftri.UUCP> <413@bunkerb.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J. Lines: 47 >>>under which a person's rights may be taken away, but again, a being who >>>has been convicted of a violent crime has, in my opinion, just forfeited >>>any rights he/she may once have claimed as a human being. >>> >>>MJF Shurtleff >>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. Ah, there's a big difference between "many", which is what you just said, and "all", which is what you originally said. I was responding to what you said originally said. I agree with you that rights should be lost, but I am not sure they should all be lost (which, to my mind, includes life) > ...... 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).... > MJR Shurtleff I agreed with most of what you had to say here, and I don't think what I've said in previous postings disputes what you think as you stated it here, but I still differ with you in regard to what a human being is. No matter what crimes they have committed, they are still human beings. Pygmy headhunters in New Guinea are also human beings. Murderers, rapists, etc. should lose their rights because of the crimes they have comitted, not because they're subhuman. Human beings murder, rape, etc. Human beings who act according to what I think is right do not. There's a difference (at least to my mind) Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom