From: gwp@dithots.Gwinnett.COM (George W. Pogue)
Newsgroups: misc.misc
Subject: Re: prisoners?
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 22:04:56 EST
Reply-To: gwp@dithots.Gwinnett.COM (George W. Pogue)
Organization: Deep In The Heart Of The South!

jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) writes:

> 
>    How absurd.  A prisoner is a prisoner because he was convicted of violatin
>    somebody else's rights.  What does that say about his own rights?  I say h
>    has forfeited them; if that other's rights were of no value to him, then h
>    own can't be either.
> 
> What is a "right" if it can be forfeited?  And just which rights are
> you suggesting those convicted of crimes forfeit?  The right to life?
> To shelter?  To food?  To medical care?  To humane treatment?  Should
> we kill those who have stolen, for example?  Or forcne them to live as
> best they can outside, even in the winter, even in North Dakota?  Or
> force them to live as best they can with painful conditions such as
> cancer without care?  
> 
> Just what is it that you're advocating?  Whatever it is, it shows an
> astounding ignorance of the nature of the so-called human rights, not
> to mention the very practical issues of imprisoning people (in a mode
> where they don't riot and kill their guards and burn down the prison
> every three years).

These comments don't show any ignorance of the such. It states a valid 
point of view. There are no basic human rights (IMHO), we are in essence 
animals and as such have only implied human rights as those we've given 
to ourselves. The right to shelter, food, medical care, humane treatment, 
etc. are human rights as we've stated them. Someone else must provide 
this for you. You can provide shelter for yourself, kill your own food, 
sew your own wounds, and treat yourself nicely, but you do not have a 
"right" to these except as given to ourselves (as the constitution gives 
some). What is meant here is why should a convicted murderer be treated 
with dignity and care when he has utterly not had the same concern for 
others? 

Why should a convicted criminal of murder (excluding self-defense 
murderers) be given medical care, shelter, food, etc. when he refused 
these so called "human rights" to the victim?  Or do we just ignore this
fact and start from ground zero once the conviction is made? Once 
convicted the criminal is now the victim of the state and the state has 
to watch not stepping on the criminals toes or the criminal will yell 
something like "cruel and unusual punishment", or "let me plea-bargain a 
reduced sentence", etc. 

Bogus! I'll say it again. Make the punishment fit the crime! Until we do, 
the criminal will always be treated better than the victim. Sure, in some 
prisons its a hard life, not a good one. I don't want it sound like a 
piece of cake, but its not nearly as hard as what the victim went 
through. The criminal is alive and the victim is dead... and the criminal 
is being treated nicely so as not to cause them problems. I have a 
problem with that.

bill

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Buy American! The Job You Save Could Be Your Own! Sell American Too!
 gwp@dithots.Gwinnett.COM (George W. Pogue)  Deep In The Heart Of The South!
 User Calls: 852      User Posts: 824    Waffle Version: 1.65
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.misc