Whole life sentences are a breach of human rights - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;41379686]I understand what natural rights are, in theory, but that doesn't mean that is the truth. I see no place for natural rights outside of religion. Any argument in favor of natural right makes so many unfounded assumptions that the entire argument falls apart. I've read "Natural Rights and History" by Leo Strauss for example and found his argument not compelling at all. Human rights, as an idea, are completely meaningless outside of a society that chooses which ones to enforce.[/QUOTE] some ideas might be strange or iffy, but i think there are a few basic natural rights that almost anyone can agree on: the right to free movement from one place to another the right to speak freely the right to make agreements with other people voluntarily i could name more but you get the point. whether or not these rights are artificial or not is beside the point. the important thing is how you and society [i]view[/i] those rights. i tend to think a society that views rights as being "natural" have more respect for the dignity of human life than ones that don't. [editline]9th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;41379721]the two are pretty much opposites of eachother. you can't 'believe' in both[/QUOTE] sure you can. if you punish a criminal hard enough they might be too scared to commit another crime, which means they are rehabilitated! i mean that's the idea that the united states has been using and it has worked out just fine for us.

The amount of dumbs in the OP worries me, either people just read the title or they're fine with life sentences with NO PAROLE.

[QUOTE=Bobie;41379721]the two are pretty much opposites of eachother. you can't 'believe' in both[/QUOTE] Yes you can, the whole point in punishing a child for example is to rehabilitate it's behaviour.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379758]some ideas might be strange or iffy, but i think there are a few basic natural rights that almost anyone can agree on: the right to free movement from one place to another the right to speak freely the right to make agreements with other people voluntarily i could name more but you get the point. whether or not these rights are artificial or not is beside the point. the important thing is how you and society [I]view[/I] those rights. i tend to think a society that views rights as being "natural" have more respect for the dignity of human life than ones that don't.[/QUOTE] Whether they are natural or a societal construct is of the utmost importance to the argument at hand. 1) Human rights are natural and objective. This means society cannot abridge, change, or absolve them at any time without being in the moral negative. 2) Human rights are purely constructs of society. This means society has every right to decide which rights are good and which are not. They can, with full moral authority, change, add, and take away rights. I would say the rights you listed are key to a working society, but in the end are still created by that society. This means we can take those rights away from people who we don't feel can be trusted with them. the ONLY way to argue that society doesn't have the right to take away rights from criminals would be to agree with option '1' and if one agrees with that option they need to either assume it to be true or provide some evidence.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41378564]The fact that that post is getting so many 'agrees' is damn depressing.[/QUOTE] I'm sure people agree with your point.

[QUOTE=Bobie;41379721]the two are pretty much opposites of eachother. you can't 'believe' in both[/QUOTE] If somebody kills 100 people in cold blood they should be punished, even if they probably won't ever do it again.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41379846]If somebody kills 100 people in cold blood they should be punished, even if they probably won't ever do it again.[/QUOTE] It's not so much that they need to be punished but that letting them out is a massive risk to the public. I'd rather they didn't get let out and everybody be safe then letting them out on the hope that they won't do it again.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41379820]Whether they are natural or a societal construct is of the utmost importance to the argument at hand. 1) Human rights are natural and objective. This means society cannot abridge, change, or absolve them at any time without being in the moral negative. 2) Human rights are purely constructs of society. This means society has every right to decide which rights are good and which are not. They can, with full moral authority, change, add, and take away rights. I would say the rights you listed are key to a working society, but in the end are still created by that society. This means we can take those rights away from people who we don't feel can be trusted with them.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying society can't take away natural rights dude. i even said earlier that a natural right is one that is present in the absence of authority. society can take rights, and does take rights all the time. what i'm saying is that a society that views rights as being something you are born with naturally is less likely to arbitrarily try and take your rights away, because doing so is viewed as stripping someone of their humanity. a society that views rights as a solely artificial construct of that society will be more likely to use "rights" as a convenience; stripping them or postponing them whenever it wants.

[QUOTE=DigitalySane;41379163]Isn't a life sentance 20 years rather than an actual life? Nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]Under most Western systems (apart from the US), a life sentence is 20 or so years at first, which is then renewed every time if the prisoner fails to prove they're no longer a threat to society. In practice, this usually means they're in there til they die. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41379461]I disagree. Execution? Sure, inhumane, no contest from me. Life sentences, however? I'm sorry, but I don't see any other options. There are people who simply pose too big of a risk to the safety of others to place back into society, people who are beyond rehabilitation. If we cannot fix them, and we cannot contain them, then what else can we do?[/QUOTE]The EU ruling is against life sentences with no possibility of parole. The way they see it, there should always be the possibility, no matter how small it is in certain cases, of redemption. How said redemption is achieved is up to the individual countries; whether it be proving they're no longer a threat, making a real effort to change, making progress in therapy etc.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379700]if psychiatrists knew how to accurately predict whether someone incarcerated would commit a crime again in the future or not, then i would hope our prison system wouldn't be so fucked up. my point is that unless you have a method to tell whether someone will be a repeat offender, you have to make an assumption. either you assume the person will be, or won't be. i don't really think there is anyone out there who should be allowed to make that assumption.[/QUOTE] I absolutely do. There are people who should never been out in the world again. The Anders Breiviks and James Holmes of the world should not, in any society, be given the opportunity to repeat their crimes. I am completely okay with giving men with PHD's in psychotherapy and behavioral science the power to make that judgment.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41379846]If somebody kills 100 people in cold blood they should be punished, even if they probably won't ever do it again.[/QUOTE] will punishment bring the 100 dead people back from the dead? why should we feed our desire for blood and revenge when it doesn't actually accomplish anything except create a sense of temporary, hollow justice.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379894]i'm not saying society can't take away natural rights dude. i even said earlier that a natural right is one that is present in the absence of authority. society can take rights, and does take rights all the time. what i'm saying is that a society that views rights as being something you are born with naturally is less likely to arbitrarily try and take your rights away, because doing so is viewed as stripping someone of their humanity. a society that views rights as a solely artificial construct of that society will be more likely to use "rights" as a convenience; stripping them or postponing them whenever it wants.[/QUOTE] How does being born with rights make it impossible to later take those rights away? I don't see the problem.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379924]will punishment bring the 100 dead people back from the dead? why should we feed our desire for blood and revenge when it doesn't actually accomplish anything except create a sense of temporary, hollow justice.[/QUOTE] No but it'll make sure they never repeat it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379924]will punishment bring the 100 dead people back from the dead? why should we feed our desire for blood and revenge when it doesn't actually accomplish anything except create a sense of temporary, hollow justice.[/QUOTE] Justice is not the same thing as wanting blood and revenge. There is something to be said for consequences for one's actions.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41378564]And if you shoot a mugger in self-defense, then there's nothing morally wrong with you being imprisoned without trial, tortured, disenfranchised, and then forced into slave labor for the rest of your life. The fact that that post is getting so many 'agrees' is damn depressing.[/QUOTE] Uh well it's pretty fucking obvious that he would not include self-defense and justified things in that verdict, and pretending that he would not account for that is fucking retarded

[QUOTE=sgman91;41379927]How does being born with rights make it impossible to later take those rights away? I don't see the problem.[/QUOTE] it's a difference in perception. i don't think there is any objective truth regarding human rights. we could go back and forth for ages and get nowhere simply because rights are merely an idea. i happen to think one outlook is superior to the other for moral, philosophical, and practical reasons. if there is no objective truth then shouldn't we just go with the outlook that ends with more people being respected and less arbitrary force put on the individual?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380003]it's a difference in perception. i don't think there is any objective truth regarding human rights. we could go back and forth for ages and get nowhere simply because rights are merely an idea. i happen to think one outlook is superior to the other for moral, philosophical, and practical reasons. if there is no objective truth then shouldn't we just go with the outlook that ends with more people being respected and less arbitrary force put on the individual?[/QUOTE] Something is only good in so far as it helps society. Using the idea of objective human rights to stop life sentences is not good for society. Also, can't the same exact argument be used by religious people? You are essentially arguing that truth is irrelevant. You are making as fundamentally non-philosophical argument.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;41379947]No but it'll make sure they never repeat it.[/QUOTE] executing/imprisoning someone out of pure practicality and doing it out of some bloodlust is very different. i'm against both, but of the two a more practical stance is preferable to me since i find tormenting others for personal satisfaction very distasteful.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41379924]will punishment bring the 100 dead people back from the dead? why should we feed our desire for blood and revenge when it doesn't actually accomplish anything except create a sense of temporary, hollow justice.[/QUOTE] Locking a mass murder away for life isn't about punishing him, it's about preventing him the opportunity to continue mass murdering. Because mass murdering is a pretty bad thing, Yawm.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41379575]... and I'm asking: "Which rights?" Also, why should they all be followed without question? My argument is that the rights you are talking about are a construct of society. These rights have been given to people and therefore can also be taken away. To say rights should never, under any circumstances, be taken away is to say society is perfect at creating rights, which is obviously not the case.[/QUOTE] from a legal standpoint, by definition a human right cannot be taken away, only violated. rights may be restricted under certain circumstances (as long as they're not the unalienable rights in the ICCPR) but once a state ratifies a body of legislation it's legally bound to protect the rights in that legislation can't ever "take them away", it's permanent rights being a social construct is irrelevant

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;41380054]from a legal standpoint, by definition a human right cannot be taken away, only violated. rights may be restricted under certain circumstances (as long as they're not the unalienable rights in the ICCPR) but once a state ratifies a body of legislation it's legally bound to protect the rights in that legislation can't ever "take them away", it's permanent rights being a social construct is irrelevant[/QUOTE] ... because everything the law says never changes? Right?

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380031]Something is only good in so far as it helps society. Using the idea of objective human rights to stop life sentences is not good for society. Also, can't the same exact argument be used by religious people? You are essentially arguing that truth is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] no i'm saying in this case truth is nonexistent because this is just an argument over a very abstract idea. our argument will turn into semantics and it will end with us both having two different definitions of what a right is. that's not useful. in this case, the outlook you apply to the abstract idea is what is useful because it can help influence your decisions. [editline]9th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41380040]Locking a mass murder away for life isn't about punishing him, it's about preventing him the opportunity to continue mass murdering. Because mass murdering is a pretty bad thing, Yawm.[/QUOTE] ranger was talking about how the person deserved to be punished, i was commenting on that.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380089]no i'm saying in this case truth is nonexistent because this is just an argument over a very abstract idea. our argument will turn into semantics and it will end with us both having two different definitions of what a right is. that's not useful. in this case, the outlook you apply to the abstract idea is what is useful because it can help influence your decisions.[/QUOTE] Truth is very much existent. The truth is that human rights are relative and constructed. I'm not sure how that is semantics. There is absolutely no reason to believe that human rights are objective or immutable.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380120]Then the truth is that they are arbitrary? That IS the truth unless proven otherwise.[/QUOTE] if speech is a right, and rights are artificially made by society, then anyone outside of society would have no ability to speak freely. that doesn't make any sense, because they obviously can. it's a natural right, it exists in absence of authority. see? this argument will just go in circles. it's just semantics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380152]if speech is a right, and rights are artificially made by society, then anyone outside of society would have no ability to speak freely. that doesn't make any sense, because they obviously can. it's a natural right, it exists in absence of authority. see? this argument will just go in circles. it's just semantics.[/QUOTE] Wait, are you saying you can't do anything unless it's a right? That's ridiculous. The very fact that we have rights is an acknowledgment that people can do things against them and that they must be protected. People do things that aren't rights all the time. You can keep saying it's semantics, but it really isn't.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380169]Wait, are you saying you can't do anything unless it's a right? That's ridiculous. The very fact that we have rights is an acknowledgment that people can do things against them. People do things that aren't rights all the time.[/QUOTE] yea because my definition of a right is anything you can do in the absence of authority(that also doesn't impose authority on others). you obviously have a different definition, which is why this discussion is sorta pointless. that's why i keep saying there is no truth in this. you or i can have different definitions for the concept and they are both valid and backed by logic. that's why i'm saying that the outlook applied is what is important, not some search for an objective truth, because in the end the outlook is what ends up being practical for our lives.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380083]... because everything the law says never changes? Right?[/QUOTE] there's a provision in pretty much all international legislation that voids any future restrictions on the application of the legislation after ratification. you can state reservations and conditions prior to ratification. afterwards the state is obliged and held to that standard to be reviewed. and they have been. across pretty much all of the legislation.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380218]yea because my definition of a right is anything you can do in the absence of authority(that also doesn't impose authority on others). you obviously have a different definition, which is why this discussion is sorta pointless. that's why i keep saying there is no truth in this. you or i can have different definitions for the concept and they are both valid and backed by logic. that's why i'm saying that the outlook applied is what is important, not some search for an objective truth, because in the end the outlook is what ends up being practical for our lives.[/QUOTE] Then you must hate modern society. Under that definition literally any positive right is not a real right. Also, my entire argument is that there is no real objective truth regarding human rights. It seems you are agreeing with this. If there is no objective truth regarding something then they don't objectively exist. That's just the way it works. It seems you are agreeing with my argument, but are then argument that it is irrelevant and that we should believe what helps society, even if it isn't true.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41378439] What if someone isn't able to understand the ramifications of their actions, due to mental issues? Do we treat them the same way as the man who brutally murdered a child for shiggles?[/QUOTE] The law is supposed to be absolute, and to not give any special treatment for anyone. Killing someone is a crime and MUST be punished, regardless of the mental estate of the killer.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41380040]Locking a mass murder away for life isn't about punishing him, it's about preventing him the opportunity to continue mass murdering. Because mass murdering is a pretty bad thing, Yawm.[/QUOTE] This doesn't stop them being locked away for life. It gives a slim opportunity for redemption but that chance is so slim it might as well not be there.