Tyranny

Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.

You'll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.

Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.

Does that work for you?

How about raise the burden of proof and stop courts from delaying a trial until I give up?
So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don't care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn't be able to drive again for a long time.

Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people's rights at least temporarily. I'm ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.
- Working with kids and driving are not inalienable rights, those are privileges bestowed upon you by the state...
- Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:
  
  There's no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren't.
  
  Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.
  
  Just being on someone else's property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.
  
  Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children's institutions.
  
  Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that's a problem with your city, but i digress...
  
  Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.
  
  Can't restrict their ability to read books & learn.
  
  No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Exactly, that's what I'm saying.
  
  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?)
  
  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?
  
  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.
- Imprisonment except for life imprisonment is limited in time. It is based and justified on the purposes of criminal punishment. So limiting their rights for the limited time of their punishment is justified and necessary, but not afterwards. Also with capital punishment there is a reason why developed countries have outlawed it.
  
  Punishment in a state of law typically has these purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution
  
  Deterrence comes from the threat of imprisonment or in smaller cases, fines, social work etc.
  
  Incapacitation is given through prison sentences. There is cases where the person is deemed to dangerous to be left out afterwards, so some countries have the institution of preventive detention. It is distinctly different from imprisonment though, because it should not serve as continued punishment. There can be non detentive incapacitations necessary. E.g. sbd. who has molested children would also be barred from working with children after he served his sentence.
  
  Rehabilitation is often negelected in the US and other countries. If the person is to be released after their sentence, the sentence should prepare them from being able to become a law abiding member of society. Taking away their rights to vote and other measures are keeping them out of society, and contradict rehabilitation.
  
  Retribution is the prison sentence. For it to be just, the person has served its retribution with the sentence.
  
  Restitution has to be decided by the court, for how it is possible to compensate the victims. But the victims are not compensated by a permanent discrimination against the perpetrator.
  
  You are literally describing my entire point. Limiting the rights of criminals is justified to some extent.
- "it's not limiting rights to imprison or execute?"
  
  Sir, the laws are a social contract. Some laws get broken all the time like jaywalking, others do but really shouldn't, like 80 over. If you broke the law to the point that you are being sent to a prison, you broke the social contract or are accused of breaking the social contract. "Rights" aren't the correct word there.
  
  Rights are inalienable because if you remove them, you are denying the person is a citizen and after a point, a human.
  
  Regardless, im looking more towards fundamental human rights, like in the universal declaration, such as:
  
  "right to life: no executions". Yes, I said executions earlier, that's a tacit acceptance they won't disappear anytime soon here, not an endorsement. Hopefully they are used only sparingly.
  
  Freedom from fear: no torture. Simple. If you need torture to control an inmate, then there vis a bigger problem. No, sleeping on a hard bed isn't torture. Isolation chambers for weeks? Depends on execution to be honest. Constant blaring noises to ensure an inmate cant sleep for days? That's torture.
  
  Freedom from Slavery: inmates must voluntarily accept breaking rocks & the labor they perform, with reward. Using them as unpaid forced labor is tantamount to slavery. Forcefully paid isn't much better.
  
  They will be safe. They will not be attacked, raped, etc.
  
  No arbitrary punishments or further detentions without proof.
  
  They will not be forced to ensure needless humiliation (checking for weapons don't count) or have their private lives used against them.
  
  No attack or threats to the families or relatives of the inmates, they will be protected just the same.
  
  No civil asset forfeiture. The police cant cover in, takes everything you own, then return you a $50 check once you exit. With exception to cases of exorbitant fraud, if prison time for more than a year or few is sentenced, then the current networth of the individual seized must be returned upon their exit of prison. This one's specifics can be debated, im not a lawyer afterall, but the base point stands.
  
  For the record, basically all of these (except civil asset forfeiture) were taken from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  
  Oh, btw, it's not a right if you're allowed to work at a school or a porn shop or a datacenter. That's a privilege you must either earn or is given by default. Those aren't rights. The institutions in question have every right to say you're not allowed near a school or library or wherever and kick you out or call the police for trespassing.
  
  Same with driving btw. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.
  
  Move to a city with good public transit and that will be made obvious.
  
  If you had to earn or pay to do something, then chance are very high It isn't a right.
You're not describing a criminal, that's an ex-convict
- Tell that to "ex-convicts" who can't vote.
- Can't believe you're being downvoted. "Same as before...execution for significant theft"
  
  Oh but ok, it's cool, we'll have voting rights after. No way someone could be reclassified as a capital criminal via the exact mechanism in the OP.
  
  I mean it's laudable to not make permanent second class citizens, but it misses the point that you can toss people in a horrendous prison system if your prison system isn't designed for rehabilitation or treating people with dignity.
  
  Ok, so i didn't dot every I & cross every T when i was responding to the guy. The OP was talking about when you exit jail, but while in it, but fair enough regardless.
  
  What i basically was saying is the current legal system already hands out verdicts, punishments, & whatnot. The person i was responding to likely doesn't doubt those, so he shouldn't doubt them just because people's rights as humans will be respected.

Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about? This is the right for dignity, eatable food, meds, beds, etc.

The goal should be reducing criminality, right? So criminals should have the chance to reeducation and to go back to society. This can only be assured by law, with RIGHTS.

Those who disagree are the capitalist pigs who profit for incarcerating the poor, without any obligation for decent food, medications and lodging.

So I don't think those are the rights OP is referencing exactly. Criminals should absolutely have the right to the things you mentioned, but I think OP was referencing more the right to vote, hold office, etc. In some states (and countries throughout history) those with felony equivalent convictions lose access to civic related rights. This severely limits their ability to participate in and therefore influence political and civic discourse and direction.
- Yeah but, how can they fight for the rights I mentioned without the rights you mentioned?
- No, look at the username in the image. The OP is referring to the right to own guns.
- Yeah I remember this post on tumblr and you're right about what they meant.
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about?

I'm sure there's more than a few people in here talking about gun ownership.
Yeah I agree, but don't you think its limiting someone's rights to imprison them in the first place? That's my entire point. Every method of reducing criminality other than simply ignoring it requires you to limit the rights of criminals.
- Imprisonments takes freedom away from you. That is the price you pay.
  
  Still, it doesn't make you less human. It shouldn't.
  
  Humans are bipedal creatures that can walk places. Putting a human in a prison cell takes some of their humanity away.
- Imprisonment is not a right, its a control system of the state. They should be the only party allowed to incarcerate, but when they sell it to private corps they can profit from it and it becomes a business, and this is the reason of all our discussion here.
  
  No that has nothing to do with our discussion. Imprisoning someone inherently limits their rights. I didn't say imprisonment was a right, I'm not sure where you got that from. The point is that imprisoning people is necessary, so limiting the rights of criminals is necessary.

"cRiMe" is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue

No, crime is the issue. I get your point but meeting peoples needs won't just end crime somehow. It will drastically reduce it, but it will always be an issue.
I'm generally against cops and "tough on crime" measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He's also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.

Adding to what I have read in other comments: access to a free attorney, good prison conditions, possibility do work again after paying for the crime