Treating people as sub-human - no longer with the same basic human rights, like the right to vote, as others - just for committing a crime, is an extremely dangerous fascist road to go down.
Criminals exist, they are people, and they have as much right to take part in the democratic process as anybody else. Equality is the cornerstone of democracy.
The only exception I would make to this is cases of electoral fraud. If you are part of an attempt to manipulate the votes you should lose the right to vote.
Some countries other than the USA that have criminal disenfranchisement laws have them ONLY for crimes targeting the state/democratic order. As of 2012, Germany, Norway and Portugal are doing this. Though most countries just let their criminals vote.
Didn’t they voluntarily give up their equality when they committed a crime? If they didn’t give that up by their actions, then they couldn’t be locked up at all. Violent crime could then potentially only be punished by a stern warning or a fine. Why are felons not allowed to own firearms in the US?
No, they did not. They aren’t suddenly inhuman because of a crime. Crime is the effect not a cause. The fact is, it is well known that something as simple as a temperature increase leads to more crime. The taking away of rights for felons after they have done their time says that the government doesn’t believe in Rehabilitation of criminals which is the reason prison was created instead of just killing them. The fact is that because felons lost the right to vote and such, the conditions they are in have become deplorable with no way to rectify it because assholes like you that have never seen the inside of a prison have more control over its condition than someone that was there for 10-20 years
Ok, I don’t mind being called a fascist, but I’ll be danged if I’m an asshole. I identify as a lady woman and therefore, should be referred to as a cunt. You’re jumping about and making an argument from emotion. You’re moving too fast to explain my views to me. Explain my views, again? Bringing up Putin was a asinine and humorous attempt to stay somewhere near the thread topic , but I can see those days are past. Let’s both take a deep breath. If we don’t talk about Putin or F-117s, we’re both going to be warned by the mods that we are BOTH acting like cunts. They’re pretty tolerant of tangents, but not that tolerant.
Wait, when people call others body parts, some people are reducing that other person to just that part and don’t mean it metaphorically? Does everyone else know that there’s these two ways of interpreting those insults? Why wasn’t I taught this in school?
It makes the interpretation of some of those as sexist make some sense, though I’ve always seen each of them going along with a vague set of behaviors/traits.
Like a dick is aggressively cocky.
A pussy is a coward.
An asshole makes things shitty.
A cunt is an aggressive asshole that goes out of their way to ruin things.
An ass makes a fool of themselves.
A bitch makes their problems everyone else’s problem. Not a body part, I know, but another one that gets called sexist.
I’ve always seen all of these as something someone of either gender can be.
Good point, don’t take it seriously though. It’s simply my opinion that being called a cunt is a feminine privilege. I just think it should be reserved for The Layyydeeez. It’s a “safe space”, IF YOU WILL.
Frankly your comment here means very little to me “lady woman”. You say a stupid point, Prepare to be told off, I don’t know what else to tell you. I live in a state that in the 1990’s had conviction via Majority not unanimous jury. I don’t take kindly to anyone saying their fellow man in unworthy of human rights. If they want to ban me so be it. I would rather be banned from every Lemmy instance, than have to see someone say something so far beyond what is a reasonable take, that you think democracy doesn’t count for some people.
With that logic the fact that the government has criminalized an act makes everyone who does it “sub-human” or “voluntarily given up their equality to other people”?
I’m not sure that’s a good road to go down. You don’t give up anything when you commit a crime. The reason we can imprison/punish criminals is that the social contract includes being subject to the outcome of a fair trial.
Right…but now we’ve drilled down to discussing the many and exciting types of crime. Some times, while waiting for a trial, the man or woman accused of maiming/killing has made it clear that he or she would prefer to maim/kill some more. Let’s call this the Putin type. Rare type, but it happens. So we prevent him or her from doing that. Do we agree that keeping Putin types locked up before trial is a good idea? What road are we going down, again?
Please be specific, I’m not sure we even are in disagreement on anything, because I’m not sure what you’re arguing for or against. Putin type kept away from fire arms, yes/no? What are your premises?
You said criminals give up equality to other humans when they voluntarily choose to commit crimes.
I said all people are equal even if they break the law. The reason we can punish criminals is not because they give up equality or become sub human, but rather because the social contract includes justice.
I don’t see how the type of crime or the type of punishment is relevant. I don’t see what Putin has to do with this either.
Are you SkinnySeagal from a better timeline, here to save us all? One in which he perhaps tries hard to take care of himself mentally and does occasional kung fu charity events?
I agree with you. Did you know that criminal disenfranchisement is not an invention of the USA? We turned it into an artform, to be sure, but it has a long history and is still a thing in many other countries (old article, couldn’t find anything more recent easily).
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Now explain “first past the post”, gerrymandering, or the D’Hondt method.
Treating people as sub-human - no longer with the same basic human rights, like the right to vote, as others - just for committing a crime, is an extremely dangerous fascist road to go down.
Criminals exist, they are people, and they have as much right to take part in the democratic process as anybody else. Equality is the cornerstone of democracy.
The only exception I would make to this is cases of electoral fraud. If you are part of an attempt to manipulate the votes you should lose the right to vote.
Some countries other than the USA that have criminal disenfranchisement laws have them ONLY for crimes targeting the state/democratic order. As of 2012, Germany, Norway and Portugal are doing this. Though most countries just let their criminals vote.
Didn’t they voluntarily give up their equality when they committed a crime? If they didn’t give that up by their actions, then they couldn’t be locked up at all. Violent crime could then potentially only be punished by a stern warning or a fine. Why are felons not allowed to own firearms in the US?
No, they did not. They aren’t suddenly inhuman because of a crime. Crime is the effect not a cause. The fact is, it is well known that something as simple as a temperature increase leads to more crime. The taking away of rights for felons after they have done their time says that the government doesn’t believe in Rehabilitation of criminals which is the reason prison was created instead of just killing them. The fact is that because felons lost the right to vote and such, the conditions they are in have become deplorable with no way to rectify it because assholes like you that have never seen the inside of a prison have more control over its condition than someone that was there for 10-20 years
Ok, I don’t mind being called a fascist, but I’ll be danged if I’m an asshole. I identify as a lady woman and therefore, should be referred to as a cunt. You’re jumping about and making an argument from emotion. You’re moving too fast to explain my views to me. Explain my views, again? Bringing up Putin was a asinine and humorous attempt to stay somewhere near the thread topic , but I can see those days are past. Let’s both take a deep breath. If we don’t talk about Putin or F-117s, we’re both going to be warned by the mods that we are BOTH acting like cunts. They’re pretty tolerant of tangents, but not that tolerant.
Everyone has an asshole, it’s a gender neutral term
Wait, when people call others body parts, some people are reducing that other person to just that part and don’t mean it metaphorically? Does everyone else know that there’s these two ways of interpreting those insults? Why wasn’t I taught this in school?
It makes the interpretation of some of those as sexist make some sense, though I’ve always seen each of them going along with a vague set of behaviors/traits.
Like a dick is aggressively cocky.
A pussy is a coward.
An asshole makes things shitty.
A cunt is an aggressive asshole that goes out of their way to ruin things.
An ass makes a fool of themselves.
A bitch makes their problems everyone else’s problem. Not a body part, I know, but another one that gets called sexist.
I’ve always seen all of these as something someone of either gender can be.
Good point, don’t take it seriously though. It’s simply my opinion that being called a cunt is a feminine privilege. I just think it should be reserved for The Layyydeeez. It’s a “safe space”, IF YOU WILL.
Frankly your comment here means very little to me “lady woman”. You say a stupid point, Prepare to be told off, I don’t know what else to tell you. I live in a state that in the 1990’s had conviction via Majority not unanimous jury. I don’t take kindly to anyone saying their fellow man in unworthy of human rights. If they want to ban me so be it. I would rather be banned from every Lemmy instance, than have to see someone say something so far beyond what is a reasonable take, that you think democracy doesn’t count for some people.
With that logic the fact that the government has criminalized an act makes everyone who does it “sub-human” or “voluntarily given up their equality to other people”?
I’m not sure that’s a good road to go down. You don’t give up anything when you commit a crime. The reason we can imprison/punish criminals is that the social contract includes being subject to the outcome of a fair trial.
Right…but now we’ve drilled down to discussing the many and exciting types of crime. Some times, while waiting for a trial, the man or woman accused of maiming/killing has made it clear that he or she would prefer to maim/kill some more. Let’s call this the Putin type. Rare type, but it happens. So we prevent him or her from doing that. Do we agree that keeping Putin types locked up before trial is a good idea? What road are we going down, again? Please be specific, I’m not sure we even are in disagreement on anything, because I’m not sure what you’re arguing for or against. Putin type kept away from fire arms, yes/no? What are your premises?
You said criminals give up equality to other humans when they voluntarily choose to commit crimes.
I said all people are equal even if they break the law. The reason we can punish criminals is not because they give up equality or become sub human, but rather because the social contract includes justice.
I don’t see how the type of crime or the type of punishment is relevant. I don’t see what Putin has to do with this either.
By the way, no one here is arguing that criminals aren’t people.
deleted by creator
/skinnyseagal “You think you’re above the law, horse, but you ain’t above mine…” /Skinnyseagal
Horses sometimes have to live in locked cubes with bathrooms, inside a large, open building. It’s called… Horse Prison. You wouldn’t know.
At least it’s a stable environment.
Are you SkinnySeagal from a better timeline, here to save us all? One in which he perhaps tries hard to take care of himself mentally and does occasional kung fu charity events?
What about birds?
Pffh, we have no time to discuss mythology! We’re here to save the world!
deleted by creator
Would a lawyer for the peoples work for NAMBLA?
hallo
I agree with you. Did you know that criminal disenfranchisement is not an invention of the USA? We turned it into an artform, to be sure, but it has a long history and is still a thing in many other countries (old article, couldn’t find anything more recent easily).
You’re right. Instead, we should form suicide squads with them and send them to Ukraine to fight imperialism
deleted by creator
I mean, criminals caught and put into jail by definition have less rights than someone free to walk anywhere… though your actual point is taken.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21.3:
Now explain “first past the post”, gerrymandering, or the D’Hondt method.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Where do you draw the line?