Prisoners should have no Constitutional Rights

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 1:06 PM

As violators of the Social Contract, prisoners should have no automatic rights under that contract. Instead, they should have only the rights we grant them, geared to advance a purpose of the penal system: punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and deterrence. The Constitutionally-exposed of you will scream "8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment!" Good, but a miss, as this is not really a right held by the prisoner, but a deliberate check on governmental power, and someone else can bring the suit against the government even if the inmate does not complain.

What do you think?

schnogg · 03-07-2006, 1:28 PM

We should ship all violators to the biggest island in the Indian Ocean. Then they will be out of our way. They won't ever start a civilization down there.
Oh, wait....

luvtolean · 03-07-2006, 1:40 PM

Hmmm.....I'll have to think about that one.

I don't belong to the "no rights" camp, but I know people who live better in prison than when they take their vacation in the "real" world.

Our prisons have become their own society, and have nothing to do with addressing a person's propensity to break the "social contract". In fact, prison often fosters plans to continue to break the contract....

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Hmmm.....I'll have to think about that one.

I don't belong to the "no rights" camp, but I know people who live better in prison than when they take their vacation in the "real" world.

I am not in the no rights camp either, but do not believe that the Constitution should be the source of the rights we deem appropriate for prisoners.

luvtolean · 03-07-2006, 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am not in the no rights camp either, but do not believe that the Constitution should be the source of the rights we deem appropriate for prisoners.

That statement falls in line with my thinking. As I alluded to, I think we accord far too many rights to prisoners. (along with locking up far too many)

Where do we look of course is the question. Do we look to the Geneva Conventions? Do we create a new document?

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 2:02 PM

I think, in consultation with psychologists, penologists, and other specialists, Congress should draft a statute outlining a program of rehabilitative objectives and the rights consonant with those goals for application to the nation's prisons. To apply, in blanket-fashion, some basic rights afforded law-abiding citizens/residents (either the Constitution or the Geneva Convention principles) to prisoners, without an examination of the purpose of punitive detention is to fail to honor both the concept of punishment and those revered documents.

Baketech · 03-07-2006, 2:06 PM

How about defining your use of the word "prisoner" for us?

redhotz28 · 03-07-2006, 2:40 PM

The US is too soft now to take away any rights from prisoners. "They're people too!" Can't you just hear the revolts? Just because you murder several people in cold blood doesn't mean you don't deserve cable TV and recreational time. Just look at Saddam- 50 years ago, there would be no trial. A soldier would have fixed the problem the moment they found him. He would have received a public slap on the hand and a behind the back medal.

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

How about defining your use of the word "prisoner" for us?

I would include: those adult persons in our country adjudicated criminally culpable, in a fair (bear with me, here) proceeding, utilizing due process and confrontation protections, sentenced to a prison term greater than 1 year + a day (I would have a different standard for rights of those convicted of misdemeanors, violations and criminal contempt charges). I would EXCLUDE those persons in pre-trial confinement.

smoothrideronli · 03-07-2006, 4:07 PM

Let me go in a slightly different direction...we talk about rights...but what should the real purpose of prisons be...to punish or to rehabilitate? Also if we should not use the constitution for prisoners does that way of thinking open the door for us to take away constitutional rights to whoever we believe does not deserve them?

phobiaphobe · 03-07-2006, 4:38 PM

Haven't you guys seen Demolition Man?

One word:

Cryoprison.

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 4:47 PM

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

Let me go in a slightly different direction...we talk about rights...but what should the real purpose of prisons be...to punish or to rehabilitate? Also if we should not use the constitution for prisoners does that way of thinking open the door for us to take away constitutional rights to whoever we believe does not deserve them?

There are 4 traditional purposes of criminal sanctions, and two of them are rehabilitation (a liberal/leftist/Democratic perspective on the issue) and punishment (a retributive view, very conservative/right-wing/Republican perspective). I believe that both of these can be served, with the type, duration, and variety of sanction.

Regarding the abridgement of Constitutional rights to those "we believe...[do]...not deserve them" I can only say there are Constitutional rights to liberty, association, speech, bearing arms, security in possessions, and rights to vote that are abridged or limited by the state every time a person is incarcerated. We suspend the right to bear arms all the time, and prevent speech that incites action every time there is a protest that "gets out of hand" even out of prison.

More theoretically, though, didn't the criminal choose not to have those rights by violating the social contract?

A person who breaches a contract for services (a contractor who fails to repair the bookshelves, say) should not get the benefits of the bargain (he shouldn't get paid for doing no work!); and, so the prisoner who has violated the social contract should not get the rights and protections --the benefits-- of that contract, because he breached it.

smoothrideronli · 03-07-2006, 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

More theoretically, though, didn't the criminal choose not to have those rights by violating the social contract?

A person who breaches a contract for services (a contractor who fails to repair the bookshelves, say) should not get the benefits of the bargain (he shouldn't get paid for doing no work!); and, so the prisoner who has violated the social contract should not get the rights and protections --the benefits-- of that contract, because he breached it.

Good point. But then the question is posed...what level of criminality do you have to reach in order to forfeit your constitutional rights? Also if a prisoner has his civil rights violated while in prison does should he be allowed retribution? I am just posing a question...I am not sure where I stand fully?

luvtolean · 03-07-2006, 5:11 PM

I think any prisoner, by the definition of the word, ie as stated above, has done something bad enough to be considered "in breach" of the social contract.

It's funny, I don't think I've heard the term used since I was in college. I had a philosophy prof who loved to talk about the social contract...and an eastern religion teacher who mentioned it. (In relation to why religious works exist...as a method of describing the social contract)

luvtolean · 03-07-2006, 5:13 PM

BTW, analog, is your first post part of your abstract for the article or something?

Baketech · 03-07-2006, 5:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analogbear

I would include: those adult persons in our country adjudicated criminally culpable, in a fair (bear with me, here) proceeding, utilizing due process and confrontation protections, sentenced to a prison term greater than 1 year + a day (I would have a different standard for rights of those convicted of misdemeanors, violations and criminal contempt charges). I would EXCLUDE those persons in pre-trial confinement.

So a "1yr +1 day" is stripped of his rights in the same manner as say a mass murderer...

phobiaphobe · 03-07-2006, 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

So a "1yr +1 day" is stripped of his rights in the same manner as say a mass murderer...

Yes but not for nearly as long.

I like the idea of putting prisoners to work. Road crews, framing, roofing. Huge labor and trade shortage where I live could be helped out.

Baketech · 03-07-2006, 5:40 PM

So would that result in judges handing down more lenient sentencing to avoid the "1Y1D" scenario...

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 5:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

Good point. But then the question is posed...what level of criminality do you have to reach in order to forfeit your constitutional rights? Also if a prisoner has his civil rights violated while in prison does should he be allowed retribution? I am just posing a question...I am not sure where I stand fully?

Thank you for really thinking and not knee-jerking through the posting! I am not really sure myself where I stand with every aspect of the whole issue. But, it is doing this, participating in the "great conversation" that will help me learn about the subject and find my voice within it.

As some rights are already forfieted, and I do not necessarily advocate MORE limitation, let me respond this way:

The way (in a very simplified/generalized way, of course) prisoner's rights cases are decided now is as follows:

A prisoner says he can't do something, sues the warden, and the state must prove at trial that the regulation or ploicy abridging the "right" in question is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," as determined by a four-part test that I will not go into here...

Now, this abridged right is currently a Constitutional right granted to the "people" of the United States. I suppose my idea is that THE ONLY rights a prisoner should have are ones that aid Rehabilitation, Punishment, Incapacity, and General/Specific Deterrence. The "default" position should not be that a prisoner is presumed to have a right unless the warden can show he shouldn't have it; but, that a prisoner enjoys ONLY those rights the "XXXX" decides are appropriate. I am advocating, I guess, for a paradigm-shift (sorry for the overused and oft-misused term) to a different default position.

Re: Civil rights violations, that is a good question. I am not sure. There is no constitutional right implicated, I might argue, and any complaints might be handled the way we handle 8Th Amendment protections from cruel/unusual punishment, because the civil rights stuff is really bifurcated into a "protection" from a lack of due process/equal protection under the law, and an actual Statute drafted by congress (which does not require a contitutional right, really).

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 5:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Yes but not for nearly as long.

I like the idea of putting prisoners to work. Road crews, framing, roofing. Huge labor and trade shortage where I live could be helped out.

Interesting, as the US Constitution allows slavery and involuntary servitude for criminals...Look at the text of section 1 of the 13th Amendment

analogbear · 03-07-2006, 5:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

So a "1yr +1 day" is stripped of his rights in the same manner as say a mass murderer...

Essentially, they are now, if both are housed in the same level of "security."

Right now, some people in (state level) pretrial detention, their only fault being too poor to afford bail, are restricted to the same level as murderers! That is real injustice.