ANSWERS: 10
  • I think it depends. In some ways they have too many, in other ways too few. It depends on what right we are talking about and how applicable it is to them or the crime. Accused rapists usually have their names plastered in the media, reputations destroyed, arrested while at work or with their families... completely smeared reputation. All before the trial. The media and the police have no professionalism, no tact, and no sensitivity to the possibility that the man might be innocent. Wives and children leave their husbands and fathers, employers find replacements or fire the individual... who could never come back in a comfortable environment. Rape tests typically come back inconclusive, false positives and false negatives do also occur, and sex does not mean rape. The possibility of false accusations after consensual sex are usually ignored. Those rape victims are never seen in the media, nor is their name ever mentioned... for fear of the additional emotional damage it may cause them. Even when young girls come out years later and admit they lied about rape... the state presumes that she has suppressed the event and doesnt know what she is talking about. If early enough, the trial will still occur even if both suspect and victim both deny rape ever happened. Teenage boys can be prosecuted as adults for having consensual sex with a minor their same age they have been dating for a year. One parent lies to child-services about the other, and the good parent loses his/her kids. All the while someone accused of murder can plead insanity, or get off on a technicality. The guilty go free and the innocent get incarcerated... it happens all the time. We care more about this liberal ideal of "protecting the victim" that we dont care about justice. We create stipulations that allow the guilty go free only because they may possibly be innocent. But we also create stipulations that keep falsely accused innocent incarcerated in order to protect their victim from further abuse. It turns out that in any situation, whoever is the initiator of an accusation or the supposed victim naturally has more rights and privileges over the other. Innocence before proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has gone out the window
  • They got too many rights after they are incarcerated. Getting college degrees in prison for free? OH PLEASE!!!
  • I trhink they have to many rights i think if they are guilty they should lose all rights but only if they are felons
  • In court, I suppose that depends upon whether to are the doer or the done to. If found guilty, I do think those convicted have too many privileges in prison. It is supposed to be a punishment, not a holding pod until time is served.
  • IN MY INSTANT VERSE/Prof. Mes Yes they have; and still To the hell! So you-good citizens, must be As robust and sturdy At least as sufficiently" as they be.
  • I think they have too many. Prisoners get cable TV, free rec. rooms, go outside and paly basketball, free library to read and study, free college educations (even those on death row)..how many AMericans would love that, free healthcare..how many Americans don't have that. and get this. death row inmates can still get transplants as in heart and kidney transplants even if they are going to be killed in 3 months..they can get a heart at a cost of $500,000 and someone else's life.. I saw it on a documentary of TV.. so yes it's true. They have WAY too many rights. Prison isn't a punishment. That's why when they get out, most of them are back in within just a few weeks..
  • Accused - no | wrongfully convicted - no | rightfully convicted - absolutely. I'm sick of my taxes paying for their all you can eat daily meals, comfortable beds, TV, "rehabilitation"...
  • Well,my personal opinion is that they have too many. I work in a jail. Men and women are held there, both felons and misdemeanors, pretrial and convicted. (The convicted felons are only there until a place opens up in the prison, theoretically, but usually we have them for a long time. I see first hand how they use their rights to manipulate the system. I also see how many of them act totally unremorseful, but then go to court and cry about how sorry they are. That burns me more than anything. However, I have to remind myself that not every person who is arrested is guilty. I also have to consider that not all officers are as fair or moral as I am. I am not perfect, but I know there are officers out there who are mean, vindictive, spiteful bullies, and that basic human rights must be protected. It is a hard balance, but I do think there are too many rights and privileges. (That is pretty bad of me I guess, because at our facility it is pretty basic, they do not get nearly as many privileges as they do in the state prisons. Most of our felons tell me they can't wait until the prison bus comes.)
  • Accused people must be afforded due process. I think until they are convicted we should err on the side of caution and give them the benifit of the doubt. Having said that... After they are CONVICTED they should have to fend for themselves. Grow their own food, make their own clothes, preform some kind of service or produce a product that can be sold to pay the saliries of their keepers.
  • In the U.S. all "accused" are innocent until "proven guilty". Sometimes the proof is a long time coming. Sometimes they are proven innocent. Our system is not perfect, but I think it does lean on the side of the accused. But, that is in the Constitution. We mess with it to our great danger, I think.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy