• sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)

    • Uvine_Umbra@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Let’s say you’re correct: ( ignoring that prison isn’t a right, but a punishment invocable by breaking law) that’s the only right that should be limited. It doesn’t justify removing any other right. Do you agree with that?

      • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes, although I think imprisoning someone is limiting more than just one right. And if you don’t count restrictions like not being able drive as a right being limited, then I would agree.