Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: They don't have their rights because they're prisoners, and prisoners don't have rights because they're prisoners? Could you explain that?

Premise: Peoples whom are not sovereign, have no rights.

Reasoning: Prisoners are not sovereign.

Conclusion: Prisoners have no rights.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: They don't have their rights because they're prisoners, and prisoners don't have rights because they're prisoners? Could you explain that?
Reasoning: Prisoners are not sovereign.
Why not? Because they're prisoners? You can't just up and take someone's rights like that. Society doesn't have the right to take them and the government certainly doesn't.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: Why not? Because they're prisoners?

Yes.

agentkgb wrote: You can't just up and take someone's rights like that.

I can after they're convicted.

agentkgb wrote: Society doesn't have the right to take them and the government certainly doesn't.

Sure it does. If an individual is found guilty of a crime, they pay with their sovereignty.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: You can't just up and take someone's rights like that.

I can after they're convicted.
I'd respond to that but the thread would get sidetracked again.

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Society doesn't have the right to take them and the government certainly doesn't.

Sure it does. If an individual is found guilty of a crime, they pay with their sovereignty.
With some of their rights, not all of them. It's not slavery, and they're not things.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: With some of their rights, not all of them. It's not slavery, and they're not things.

Slaves are people too, they just aren't sovereign.

Same applies to prisoners.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: With some of their rights, not all of them. It's not slavery, and they're not things.

Slaves are people too, they just aren't sovereign.

Same applies to prisoners.
Why? Why does it apply? Conviction doesn't mean an individual automatically loses all their rights to the government.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: Conviction doesn't mean an individual automatically loses all their rights to the government.

Yes it does.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Conviction doesn't mean an individual automatically loses all their rights to the government.

Yes it does.
Why? Where did you get that idea from anyway?

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: Why? Where did you get that idea from anyway?

From the basis of any legal system.

Conviction represents a crime against government/society. As punishment, sovereignty is taken away. Therefore, prisoners are not sovereign, therefore prisoners have no rights.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Why? Where did you get that idea from anyway?

From the basis of any legal system.

Conviction represents a crime against government/society. As punishment, sovereignty is taken away. Therefore, prisoners are not sovereign, therefore prisoners have no rights.
Besides the fact that the prisoners at Gitmo haven't been convicted, society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all. They aren't reduced to the status of property.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.

What rights to United States prisoners have?

agentkgb wrote: They aren't reduced to the status of property.

Not at all, they're reduced to the status of prisoner.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: society can't take away all of someone's rights. They take away some (like in the legal system used for most US prisoners), but not all.

What rights to United States prisoners have?
Free speech, freedom of/from religion, right to medical care, I could list others if you want.
LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: They aren't reduced to the status of property.

Not at all, they're reduced to the status of prisoner.
Which you have so far equated to the status of property.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: Free speech, freedom of/from religion, right to medical care, I could list others if you want.

I believe you are confusing "right" with "privilege". Outside of prison, two of those rights are protected, but within prison, those are gifts from their captors.

agentkgb wrote: Which you have so far equated to the status of property.

I would equate them to the status of cattle. They are living being, but they are under the complete control of another.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Free speech, freedom of/from religion, right to medical care, I could list others if you want.

I believe you are confusing "right" with "privilege". Outside of prison, two of those rights are protected, but within prison, those are gifts from their captors.
And so it would be perfectly acceptable to deny them medical care and require them to practice a certain religion? Most people I think would say no.

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Which you have so far equated to the status of property.

I would equate them to the status of cattle. They are living being, but they are under the complete control of another.
Are cattle not considered property in the US?

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: And so it would be perfectly acceptable to deny them medical care and require them to practice a certain religion? Most people I think would say no.

It would be legally acceptable, yes. That is, until their term of imprisonment is complete, or until they are deemed innocent by appeal.

In the United States, the only rights prisoners have retained are the rights to due process.

agentkgb wrote: Are cattle not considered property in the US?

Yes, but they are also living property. As such, it is the owner's responsibility to maintain that property's living qualities.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: And so it would be perfectly acceptable to deny them medical care and require them to practice a certain religion? Most people I think would say no.

It would be legally acceptable, yes. That is, until their term of imprisonment is complete, or until they are deemed innocent by appeal.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's the case. The ACLU has a list of prisoners' rights.

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Are cattle not considered property in the US?

Yes, but they are also living property. As such, it is the owner's responsibility to maintain that property's living qualities.
Is that why they're slaughtered?

And why would conviction mean that someone loses all their rights in the first place? The punishment is imprisonment (or fine or community service or whatever), but that doesn't include giving up all rights to the government and there's no reason it would.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's the case. The ACLU has a list of prisoners' rights.

So where's the right that says prisoners have the right to die?

agentkgb wrote: Is that why they're slaughtered?

I suppose that would be the difference between a prisoner and property. A prisoner (or non-sovereign) differs from property because a prisoner is not owned, he/she is merely contained.

agentkgb wrote: And why would conviction mean that someone loses all their rights in the first place? The punishment is imprisonment (or fine or community service or whatever), but that doesn't include giving up all rights to the government and there's no reason it would.

You can't be both a prisoner, and still have your rights. Once someone is deemed a prisoner, they are denied their rights.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I'm not a lawyer but I don't think that's the case. The ACLU has a list of prisoners' rights.

So where's the right that says prisoners have the right to die?
Harper's Magazine article
Harper's wrote: In 2000 a U.S. District Court judge found that a federal prisoner could not be force-fed, despite the fact that Federal Bureau of Prison guidelines allowed for it. (“I just don't think the government has put forward any kind of compelling interest that would allow me to override a person's last, ultimate means of protesting government,” the judge wrote.)

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Is that why they're slaughtered?

I suppose that would be the difference between a prisoner and property. A prisoner (or non-sovereign) differs from property because a prisoner is not owned, he/she is merely contained.
They're not "merely contained" if they don't have any rights though.

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: And why would conviction mean that someone loses all their rights in the first place? The punishment is imprisonment (or fine or community service or whatever), but that doesn't include giving up all rights to the government and there's no reason it would.

You can't be both a prisoner, and still have your rights. Once someone is deemed a prisoner, they are denied their rights.
I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I've noticed that they're often denied their rights. My question was why.

Because there's nothing in place to protect their rights.
We have rights. There's no reason people would lose it just because they're a prisoner.