Jeffrey Tang Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 When a person violates another person's rights by committing a crime, we generally state that the offender should be punished by depriving him of his property, his freedom, and in extreme cases his life. Does that mean the offender has (temporarily, at least) forfeited his own rights to life, liberty, and property by denying the existence of these rights through his criminal actions? I'm inclined to say yes. Any input? Criticism? Alternatives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadesofgrey Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 When a person violates another person's rights by committing a crime, we generally state that the offender should be punished by depriving him of his property, his freedom, and in extreme cases his life. Does that mean the offender has (temporarily, at least) forfeited his own rights to life, liberty, and property by denying the existence of these rights through his criminal actions? I'm inclined to say yes. Any input? Criticism? Alternatives? I agree. I think those rights only exist under the condition that you adhere to the laws in place to protect said rights. Actually, as soon as I typed that last sentence it sounded wrong. Those rights EXIST regardless, hence their "inalienability". However, as you put it, the ability to freely EXERCISE those rights is forfeit should you choose to violate the rights of another. In theory anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 5, 2009 Report Share Posted July 5, 2009 When a person violates another person's rights by committing a crime, we generally state that the offender should be punished by depriving him of his property, his freedom, and in extreme cases his life. Does that mean the offender has (temporarily, at least) forfeited his own rights to life, liberty, and property by denying the existence of these rights through his criminal actions? I'm inclined to say yes. Any input? Criticism? Alternatives? I'm inclined to say no (specifically to "forfeiting rights"). Consider the fact that if you own $5,000, then you have the right to that property. (Similarly, you have the right to your labor as a carpenter). This does not mean that you may always do as you wish with your $5,000, which would seem to imply a restriction on your rights. As a specific example, suppose you get some guy to agree to build a deck for $5,000 -- he does so, and then wants his money. Your act of entering into an agreement with the guy has a consequence, that you have to give the guy $5,000. It would be wrong to say that by entering into an agreement you forfeit your rights to your property or life (if you're the carpenter). The fact of denying someone's rights does not properly result in punishment -- I can declare that you have no rights and should be tossed into the nearest chipper-shredder, without deserving a legal punishment, because my act was harmless. It is not the denying that gets you into water (hot or otherwise), it is the act that you perform. Acts have consequences, and some of those consequences are enforced by law. I do not see the need to invoke the notion of forfeiture of rights whenever there is a crime, tort or contract dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-C Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Interesting point, David. Often, rights forfeiture it is invoked as a counter to pacifists who refuse to acknowledge the (fundamental) difference between assault and defense, assailant and victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0n Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 A person who violates someone else's rights can no longer claim those rights for himself with any consistency. The task of meting out that "consistency" is delegated to the government, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAllotrope Posted August 20, 2009 Report Share Posted August 20, 2009 Along Jason's lines, someone violating your rights has implicitly asserted that you do not have the rights which were violated. Rights are abstract principles governing human social interactions, and by their nature are universal (The Rights of Man, not the rights of some men). Anyone who claims rights to which you are not also given is trying to exempt himself from his identity as a human being and the nature of rights. It is only just that someone who denies one person rights can claim none for himself. As for whether someone loses ALL rights as a consequence, that's a matter for government to define. Some, such as the US, consider petty theft to require restitution or some relatively minor punishment. Other countries will chop off the offender's hands. Dave: I'm quite confused by the deck analogy. That seems to me to be a regular contractual agreement, an exchange of value. Now, one party NOT fulfilling their contractual obligation would be where "forfeiture of rights" might be invoked, but that wasn't mentioned. Also, there was no mention of talking about throwing someone into a chipper...the original post specifically introduced an action, crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.