Talk:Individual rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] better to let a criminal go free; than to execute an innocent
"People who argue that individual rights are more important than social control are called, "individual rights advocates". This school of thought holds that it is better to let a criminal go free; than to execute, imprison, or otherwise punish an innocent person."
Is this actually true? I don't think any "individual rights advocates" actually believe that fairly sentenxed criminals should go unpunished, although the majority probably believe that criminals should certainly not be executed, regardless of their crimes. Does the author have any evidence for to support this? -- Axon
You are reading it wrong, advocates of individual rights do not believe that criminals should go unpunished. It is the question of fairness which leads to the debate itself, as we can never be sure what is truly fair, we must inevitably error in one direction or the other. Individual rights advocates say its better that we error in favor of setting criminals free, than convict innocent people in an attempt to ensure we also convict all the criminals. In essence, individual rights advocates interpret "reasonable doubt" very broadly.Shino Baku
I understand what the author is trying to get at, I just question the veracity. Do individual rights advocates really consider themselves in this way (in which case some supporting evidence would be useful) or, as I think, is this more how they are viewed by their opponents? If so it seems to me that this is bias and would be better placed elsewhere in the article in a 'opponents criticise individual rights advocates because...' type sentence. -- Axon
Its not criticism. Its better to set criminals free than imprison innocent people. The rights of the individual to due process and justice are more important than the "rights" of the state to impose its laws. Shino Baku
I appreciate what is being said may not necessarily a criticism and what you are trying to say. What I'm asking is 'is this claim really true for the majority of individual rights advocates?' and 'what evidence is there to support this?' The claim may well be true, but I would just like verification one way or the other. -- Axon
[edit] Definition of individual rights
What is your definiton of individual rights? Shino Baku
The same as everyone else's: that they are the rights an individual has, such as a right to privacy, anonymity, etc., that trump the rights of the state. I suppose, and this is what I assume you're getting at, that such rights allow some guilty individuals to walk free at the expense of protecting everyone's individual rights. However, I would contest this view and argue that police already have enough powers to convict the guilty successfully, and that the ratio of guilty to innocent people walking away from a court of law does not actually change that much with increased police powers at the expense of individual rights. Of course, I'm neither an individual rights advocate nor an expert in the field. Which is why I ask for proof of that 'individual rights' advocates see themselves in this way. -- Axon
If Im given the freedom to board an airline without being searched for a gun, wouldn't you think it reasonable to conclude that by allowing me to have increased freedoms, one is also allowing criminals to have increased freedom? Whenever one advocates increased individual rights, one is arguing that the loss of that right is worse than extending that right to criminals. If I argue that all citizens should be allowed to own an assault rifle, I am arguing that although potential criminals will then be able to own an assault rifle, I would rather let the criminals have that freedom, than lose that freedom myself.
As Jeremy Bentham said:
- "Every law is an infraction of liberty"
I appreciate the logic Shino, but I would still like evidence backing up the assertion that individual rights advocates really see themselves in this way. Otherwise, this is just opinion dressed up as fact. The logic does not necessarily follow in all cases. For example, the right to privacy is often claimed to make it harder to catch criminals, but I've often heard privacy rights advocates disclaim this. -- Axon
Right, but those are privacy rights advocates, we are dealing specifically with individual rights advocates. Now granted, the statement in question is a POV and thus not necessarily correct, for example, I would not necessarily agree that we must extend individual rights to allowing personal ownership of nuclear weapons on the grounds that the loss of these individual rights is a greater "crime" than any possible crime that could be committed by a criminal who is given these rights.
Naturally, privacy rights advocates have a vested interest in maintaining a POV in which they argue that increased individual rights are not only good, but they won't even result in increased criminal behavior Perhaps someone even argues that increased privacy will result in more criminals being caught...because...I can't think of a reason why. Certainly, privacy rights is a subbranch of individual rights and you will find people who argue, "Yes, increased privacy will make it easier for criminals to operate in secrecy; however, the ill effects of those criminal actions will NOT equal the ill effects of curtailing privacy rights." This latter argument being exactly what is expressed in the article.
Perhaps most importantly, which is why I do hope I find you a source, the expression regarding "It is better to set a criminal free, than imprison an innocent man" is not merely an extrapolation of individual rights theory, but its some kind of actual quote from somewhere. The idea essentially is, if we remove enough individual rights, we can have a police state and arrest everybody, and thus arrest all the criminals; but, it is better to arrest nobody and arrest none of the criminals (than to arrest everybody). Shino Baku
[edit] Americentric definition
I've just taken a quick look at the page and this discussion. I do not really this discussion is getting to the heart of the problem with this article in that the concept of individual rights is contested outside the United States (once again a Americentric Wikipedia entry). As you will see in recent edits I have done on Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Freedom of speech (Canada) there are many countries (developed out of the United Nations System) that see collective rights as being a necessary balance against individual rights. I have only briefly touched upon these topics but there is a large literature out there on these issues. As far as the quote is concerned there are some famous criminal scholars who have said similar quotes I will try and dig one up in my spare time. it has come up again lately in discussions about DNA evidence uncovering so many convicted felons that were really innocent victims of sloppy police work. Alex756
I'm not sure that the following is true......
-
- Despite the fact that fair trials and open-ended tolerance of dissent may have costs no less significant than food or homes, the United States and other countries maintained that there was a definite moral difference between their traditional negative rights and the more intervention and distribution-focused positive rights.
First of all, enough though positive rights aren't in much evidence in U.S. Federal constitutional law, there are a lot of state constitutions which contain positive rights (i.e. a judicially enforcable right to public education). Second, even though its not in U.S. constitutional law, the notion of positive rights is not absent from U.S. political dialogue. One of FDR's four freedoms is freedom from want. Finally, most conservatives and libertarians that I know don't believe that negative rights are morally superior to positive rights. The belief is that only by the protection of negative rights can there be the prosperity that makes positive rights possible. -- User:Roadrunner
Why no mention of God-given rights in this article? Isn't that the foundation of the belief of individual rights? That they are given to man by God? The Declaration of Independence makes reference to this belief and the Bill of Rights enumerates it.--[Bogart]
[edit] Removed Paragraph
I removed the following from the page:
- Conversely, adherents of socialist and communist philosophies sometimes argue for a few restrictions on negative rights if they provide a significant increase in positive rights. This line of thought was also popular in the 1950s and 1960s in some communist states. However in the 1980s, it appeared that judged from their own standard of providing positive rights (such as the right to economic prosperity), those governments appeared lacking, and this was a major factor in the collapse of many such regimes in the late 1980s. Contemporary communists and socialists point to the corruption that existed in those countries (resulting from their lack of democracy) as the main cause of their failure to deliver positive rights to their citizens. While the Soviet Union collapsed, the democratic socialist systems that put a similar emphasis on positive rights, but without neglecting negative rights, (i.e. nations such as the Scandinavian countries) prospered.
This paragraph is hopelessly POV. Not everyone believes the distiction between positive and negative rights is valid. Also what counts as socialist and communist, and what they believe is a complex issue. There is no justification given for saying that some communist states held this POV. The word some is evasive, and non-concreate. Why the Soviet Union collapsed is another complex issue, which can be debated at great lengths. To say that a country has prospered because of its emphasis on "positive rights" is also debatable.
I also removed the following:
- The idea that economic prosperity overrides negative rights was also used to justify right wing East Asian regimes in the 1960s and is still used by the government of the People's Republic of China to justify its political system.
This seems questionable, but is ok if one might find a reference. I don't know how much creedence the idea of positive/negative rights is given outside of American right-wing circles. millerc 07:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Focus of Article wrong
This is a very bizarre entry.
I think the entire focus of this article is wrong. Rather than defining what individual rights are and the different ways that they are defined and applied, it makes unsubstantiated assertions about what proponents of individual rights believe. Interesting definitions can be found in U.N. Charters and the U.S. Constitution, including providing instances where such rights are grossly violated.
All liberals who believe in individual rights agree that they must balanced. The old adage says that your right to extend your arm ends at my nose. Laws are needed not to hold up the state in and of itself, but to ensure and harmony among individuals with different interests but with the same rights. Since criminals grossly violate the individual rights of others, they go to jail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.42.124.32 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 February 2006 .
"In practice, no Canadian government has ever chosen to face the political consequences of actually overriding the Charter."
This is false. Firstly, you need to refer to the "Notwithstanding Clause" by name. Secondly, it has been invoked several times by several provincial governments.
This article is badly flawed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.42.124.32 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 February 2006 .
[edit] Templates
This thing has way too many templates. Whoever came up with the sidemounted list template instead of the bottom template should be tickled under his soles for eternity. Joffeloff 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UN Declaration of Human rights
I want to substantially alter the paragraph about the UN declaration of human rights. The UN declaration of human rights is not a statement about individual rights, it is a human rights issue meaning they describe both individual rights and rights that can only be issued by government and are not contingent on duties to be performed by the individual. Mrdthree 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK so I will. Human rights are not individual rights. Mrdthree 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
