Creative Burrow

BunnyWarren => DebatingBurrow => Topic started by: Bunny on 08:38pm Thu, Aug 15, 2013

Title: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Bunny on 08:38pm Thu, Aug 15, 2013
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/q71/1176393_561770150537493_288507673_n.jpg)

Quote
Raymond Akhtar Ali, 60, was fed a vegetarian diet in Maryborough Correctional Centre for four months in late 2008 and early 2009.

His religious beliefs required he eat specially-prepared halal meat, which must be blessed, slaughtered, cooked and stored according to strict rules.

Ali was incorrectly told that halal food was not available, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard.

The Tribunal ordered the Queensland State Government to pay the $3000 compensation into a victim trust fund, the Courier-Mail reports.

Ali can access the money after he leaves jail if there are no claims from victims and he does not owe any fines.

He can apply for parole from August next year.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie described Ali as a "monster" and said he is seeking advice to appeal the decision.

Ali was sentenced to life in prison after he bashed and dismembered his newborn daughter before burying her body at his home in Logan City in 1998.

In light of this story, do you think criminals have rights? Do their rights matter? Do their beliefs matter?

While this guy beat and cut his baby girl into tiny pieces for no reason I do still believe he has rights/his beliefs matter. He's a horrible person but he's still a person. I don't believe the payment was warranted however, as his beliefs were not fringed upon, nor do I believe that prisons should cater to his halal needs - as long as his beliefs aren't being disrespected he shouldn't get special treatment. And that goes for all of them. It was wrong of them to lie to him but to be honest it was 4 months, such it up.

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Doodle on 07:33am Fri, Aug 16, 2013
Everybody has rights. Basic human rights are basic for a reason. You don't need to pass some decency test before you get them, you just have them. And they should not be taken away from anybody.
People who believe that criminals shouldn't have any laws scare me. It's throwing your humanity away. You don't just want to punish this person, you want to release your anger, to have an excuse to be cruel.
Not everybody in the prison is a complete monster and in fact, sometimes innocent people are sentenced to jail (or even to death...) for something they didn't do.
Also, if we (we, the civilised countries, let's say) take away prisoners' rights, it's easier for dictatorships to justify them taking away their prisoners' rights. And their prisoners are often sentenced for things that shouldn't actually be crimes (like fighting the dictatorship, homosexuality, being a rape victim and so on...).

[I use "you" a lot in this post, but I hope it's clear that I don't mean any specific person right now ;)]
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Ryder13 on 09:55pm Sat, Aug 17, 2013
 Well I have to say to my way of thinking that individual is a piece of shit and is no more human than a
cockroach. I would personally prefer to see him put to death. Not tortured, just put to death.
It is rather ironic that this human piece of excrement cited his 'religious beliefs' as reason
for a special diet. What does that religion say about butchering babies?
I guess he considers his religion important and he sees himself as a religious man.
Was it important when he butchered the infant?
 
Ryder13
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: fibromama on 03:04pm Mon, Aug 19, 2013
Well I have to say to my way of thinking that individual is a piece of shit and is no more human than a
cockroach. I would personally prefer to see him put to death. Not tortured, just put to death.
It is rather ironic that this human piece of excrement cited his 'religious beliefs' as reason
for a special diet. What does that religion say about butchering babies?
I guess he considers his religion important and he sees himself as a religious man.
Was it important when he butchered the infant?
 
Ryder13

I agree. What human rights did the baby get?  This man needs to suffer severely.  Only eating halal meat when he butchered a baby? Please! Either death penalty or life in solitude.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Bunny on 10:20pm Wed, Aug 21, 2013
Everybody has rights. Basic human rights are basic for a reason. You don't need to pass some decency test before you get them, you just have them. And they should not be taken away from anybody.

Agreed! But when ever I say it people look at me like I've just done what the criminal did. 8-)

Not everybody in the prison is a complete monster and in fact, sometimes innocent people are sentenced to jail (or even to death...) for something they didn't do.

EXACTLY!! That is another HUGE worry.

Well I have to say to my way of thinking that individual is a piece of shit and is no more human than a
cockroach.

He's still human, just a human who's ugly inside.

I would personally prefer to see him put to death. Not tortured, just put to death.

Then how would he pay for it? This is opening another debate...

It is rather ironic that this human piece of excrement cited his 'religious beliefs' as reason
for a special diet. What does that religion say about butchering babies?
I guess he considers his religion important and he sees himself as a religious man.
Was it important when he butchered the infant?
 
Ryder13

VERY good point, would like to see someone argue this into the main topic - such as, if his beliefs were that important he wouldn't have ended up in jail in the first place.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: GemmaRowlands on 03:25pm Mon, Aug 26, 2013
I think that everybody has human rights, just for being a human being, and there is nothing that should change that. However, I know that a lot of people are treated far too well in prison, and I think that this is something that really has to stop. For example, I know that many are allowed to watch films and other DVDs while they are inside, and that they are allowed access to things like games consoles and pool tables. They are supposed to be in there because of the fact that they have committed a crime.

That being said, I could never support a system that tortured people, because no matter what they do, simply being taken out of society is something that would be enough of a punishment without having to do anything else at all.

It's a hard thing to think about though, because there is no excuse for certain things such as murder, and for that reason it can be difficult to understand why some criminals should have rights. But if you treat them badly then I think that makes you just as bad as them.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: theodora on 04:57pm Wed, Jul 9, 2014
The initial example that the OP posted is a pretty extreme one in some ways - most prisoners are serving sentences for a nonviolent crime. But it's also rather tame in another way - most prisoners are suffering violations to their dignity and bodily well-being than being fed a vegetarian rather than a halal diet.

In general, the theory of carceral punishment that our justice system purportedly espouses is one in which time served is the sum of the punishment. In reality, prisoners surrender nearly all their "rights." There are a lot of great sources about life on the inside, one of my favorite is Prison Culture: http://www.usprisonculture.com/blog/

Additionally, reading books like Foucault's Discipline & Punish may help provide helpful context on the current paradigm of incarceration.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: bsthebenster on 07:56pm Thu, Jul 10, 2014
They don't have as many as the rest of us, but they do have some nonetheless. I fact, I believe they have more than they should as I believe they shouldn't have any whatsoever.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Bunny on 05:47am Sun, Jul 20, 2014
Maybe if we start taking rights away and instilling new rights for prisoners, it will be more of a wake up call to some?
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Besnardm on 08:27am Mon, Jul 21, 2014
I would like to just say, "scum like him doesn't deserve shit!" but after thinking about it (not everyone is him in particular) Criminals do deserve right just as we do, my reasons are, because its the right thing to give them even though they did something bad doesn't mean they don't have any rights.

They do their time and try not to do anything else "bad".
or they should get sent to there own little island were they work to be better people (not exactly sure if some people will know what I mean)

.... but that guy above deserves to be in pain and suffer for what he did (I'm all over the place) :P
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: bsthebenster on 10:44am Sat, Jul 26, 2014
I would like to just say, "scum like him doesn't deserve shit!" but after thinking about it (not everyone is him in particular) Criminals do deserve right just as we do, my reasons are, because its the right thing to give them even though they did something bad doesn't mean they don't have any rights.

They do their time and try not to do anything else "bad".
or they should get sent to there own little island were they work to be better people (not exactly sure if some people will know what I mean)

.... but that guy above deserves to be in pain and suffer for what he did (I'm all over the place) :P

But it's been shown that criminals can't be rehabilitated the majority of the time. I don't mean pot dealers and whatnot, I mean real criminals.
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Besnardm on 10:49am Sun, Jul 27, 2014
I would like to just say, "scum like him doesn't deserve shit!" but after thinking about it (not everyone is him in particular) Criminals do deserve right just as we do, my reasons are, because its the right thing to give them even though they did something bad doesn't mean they don't have any rights.

They do their time and try not to do anything else "bad".
or they should get sent to there own little island were they work to be better people (not exactly sure if some people will know what I mean)

.... but that guy above deserves to be in pain and suffer for what he did (I'm all over the place) :P

But it's been shown that criminals can't be rehabilitated the majority of the time. I don't mean pot dealers and whatnot, I mean real criminals.
The stupid thing is that the criminals can be rehabilitated only if they truly want to, most pretend so that they cant just get through their sentence
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: Lizzy123471 on 07:14am Sun, Mar 6, 2016
This is a very complicated situation whereby all parties should be held accountable.
Ali committed murder and is therefore doing time for his crime.
The Correctional facility should in addition to their duty, be a rehabilitation service as well as a correctional one.
Thus, they should not have misled him with regards to his Halaal request.
The question is though, was he refusing regular meals served by the correctional facility because they were not Halaal?

Any individual, regardless of their crime, still have normal human rights as any other individual. Thus meaning, they should receive proper education, health services etc.
It cannot however just be left there and think all is well. The reason behind every individual's crime should be determined and treated accordingly. For example, in certain countries where severe poverty is prevalent, individuals go to prison regularly for theft (which in this case is often for food). This does not mean that this person cannot be rehabilitated to go out and live a wonderful life.

Again, with Ali, additional information would also be helpful with regards to the financial settlement? If the Correctional Facility was at fault, how was this settlement 'okay'?
Title: Re: [Debate] Do criminals have rights?
Post by: EllyMarks on 10:40am Sat, Apr 2, 2016
This took me a lot of thinking, and I might not be done yet. A criminal's rights are always going to be revoked. What we call human rights are more like civilized privileges. Yes, it's good to fight for everyone to have equal rights who should have a chance in life...so, this guy revoked his daughter's right to continue living if she wanted, I'm guessing it's because she was female and it's offensive in some cultures for a mother to give birth to a baby that isn't male? It's sadly common enough to be a safe guess, and that's why, say, people fight for women's right and children's rights in places where men's rights and adult's rights are a given.

What it looks here to be is not a general question of murderer's rights, but religious rights. They would be separate issues, but they intersect in the same person. And that makes it gross to me that someone's so concerned about feeding this monster at all, let alone how.

But if we revoked this criminal's rights all the way, we would have someone dismember and bury him the same way he did his victim. Why draw the line at freedom? (Rhetorical question. Obviously, I wouldn't want him out in society near any small children, even if he only abused and murdered his own.) Why draw the line long before dietary preferences?

Ideally, the definition of human rights should be 1.) that we all have the same ones, and 2.) mine end where yours begin. So, we'd both have the right to privacy and we'd both have the right to pursue knowledge. If I exercise my "right" to pursue knowledge to the point of invading your privacy, that's not a right anymore...unless I relinquish my own "right" to privacy, because we're supposed to have the same ones for the word "right" to continue having any meaning. That means no revoking any, between us.

I guess ideally, dealing with criminals would be in a way that allows society to navigate the challenges of coexistence. We should revoke as much of the criminal's civilized privileges as endangers non-criminals for that criminal to exercise them. The question shouldn't be whether the sentence is harsh enough, rather, does it put this person and this society in a better position? I'm still all for justice that would be rehabilitative rather than simply containing and/or punishing people. Keeping the meals vegetarian will not convince this person either way that what he'd done to his daughter was wrong (not only "consequences not worth the effort" but "wrong, evil, bad...wrong") so...it feels gross to type it, but I've got to say, let him have his vegetarian meals. And some sort of sensitivity training, or therapy for his issues of violent tendencies towards baby girls.