hemkantaregmi
Sep 16, 2013
Writing Feedback / A Person knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract [2]
Issue
A Person knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from him or her own labor.
My Response
I partially agree with the argument made here that banning from civil rights and the discredit about his own labor.
If a person knowingly commits a crime then he/she is certainly a guilty person. So he/she should have punishment according the gravity of his/her committed crime. He/she should be refrained from the certain civil rights but not from the all rights. He/she should be kept in a way that he/she doesn't seem harmful to others. If a person commits a crime like killing of another person, robbing bank etc. Then he/she should be kept in such a way so that he/she doesn't seem harmful to others. He/she should be imprisoned so that he/she will be unable to do such activities in future. But he/she should not be refrained from all of civil rights, he/she should be refrained according to seriousness of committed crime.
During his life in prison, we may use him/her to do some works according to his/her level of skill so that he/she remains busy on work and forgot about the criminal thoughts that he/she already have. It also utilizes the spare time to some fruitful products. Suppose one may skilled in making toy. So we could bring him the raw materials and he could manufacture the toy. The fund coming from such toy or in another words his/her labor should not be totally forfeited. Some amount may be kept for the system but he/she should be paid for his/her labor. This fund may be required for his/her life after this imprisonment.
In sum, we couldn't totally deprive any criminal from civil rights and make him/her unpaid for his/her labor.
Issue
A Person knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from him or her own labor.
My Response
I partially agree with the argument made here that banning from civil rights and the discredit about his own labor.
If a person knowingly commits a crime then he/she is certainly a guilty person. So he/she should have punishment according the gravity of his/her committed crime. He/she should be refrained from the certain civil rights but not from the all rights. He/she should be kept in a way that he/she doesn't seem harmful to others. If a person commits a crime like killing of another person, robbing bank etc. Then he/she should be kept in such a way so that he/she doesn't seem harmful to others. He/she should be imprisoned so that he/she will be unable to do such activities in future. But he/she should not be refrained from all of civil rights, he/she should be refrained according to seriousness of committed crime.
During his life in prison, we may use him/her to do some works according to his/her level of skill so that he/she remains busy on work and forgot about the criminal thoughts that he/she already have. It also utilizes the spare time to some fruitful products. Suppose one may skilled in making toy. So we could bring him the raw materials and he could manufacture the toy. The fund coming from such toy or in another words his/her labor should not be totally forfeited. Some amount may be kept for the system but he/she should be paid for his/her labor. This fund may be required for his/her life after this imprisonment.
In sum, we couldn't totally deprive any criminal from civil rights and make him/her unpaid for his/her labor.