Cool story, bro. The Constitution believes criminals still have human rights.
I am fundamentally against criminals.
Which means you're against the Constitution, which provides limits on how we can treat prisoners.
I am even more fundamentally against people who would give two shits about a convicted murders "rights". Hilarious...in it's stupidity.
Yes, I know you believe that the Constitution is negotiable if it's in the interest of your ideology. That's my point.
Cruel and unusual punishment for a violent felon is open for interpretation. If he is still breathing after the end of the day...nothing cruel or unusual happend.
If you *actually* gave half a shit about our Constitutional rights, you would have a problem with prisoner abuse as well. Because once you decide prisoner abuse is acceptable (even though the Constitution says it's not), then that means we've set a precedent that our Constitutional rights are negotiable. Which then completely undermines any future argument that we have an "inalienable constitutional right" to anything --- guns, or fair trials.
You friggin people are more worried that a child rapist or murder will be treated "fairly" to ensure his rights...a person that broke the most sacred law on the planet..and you want to make sure he is all warm and fuzzy with his rights.
That's the thing about the Constitution, is you have to abide by all of it, not just the parts you agree with.
Actually, I don't believe a person has that right to begin with, so it's moot to discuss "taking it away."
Yet, a person that has done NOTHING wrong, you piss and moan and want to take away their 2nd amendment right?
Case in point: libertarians are completely incapable of registering nuance.
Hey genius, that guy in prison just killed your family and you didn't have a gun to defend yourself. Make sure and send him a christmas card. Wouldn't want him to feel too punished.
I never said anything about treating prisoners kindly, or even lightly -- that's just your ideology speaking, filling in the blanks where you're not comfortable thinking for yourself. We're talking about humane treatment. And some food for thought: 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted in the US each year on average, only to later have their convictions overturned. If you allow prisoner abuse, you are also allowing a small percentage of law-abiding citizen abuse because you're allowing the abuse of people who were convicted wrongfully. If you're willing to write those citizens off as "collateral damage," then so be it, but be aware that this means (once again) that you are opposed to the principles set up in the constitution.
No, actually, it guarantees rights to all American citizens, prisoner or no --- of course you would know that if you had read the Constitution in its entirety. If a prison guard were to shoot a prisoner in his cell for no reason (which he couldn't in most cases as most prison guards are not armed for safety reasons --- think about that for a moment), that guard could be tried for murder. Because when you are tried for a crime, it's because you have rights; when you are sentenced to, say, 10 years in prison, it's because you have a right to live after your sentence is through; when you are released, it's because you have served your time.
It guarantees this right to law abiding citizens. Felons..no. So when you become a felon, you piss away your rights.
If you abuse your prisoners, you are toying with the justice system in a way that was not intended, and you are adding to their sentence in a way that is not allowed by the Constitution. You are basically interfering with a court judgment of how that person is to be treated. If you kill someone in prison, you are revoking that person's right to continue living in the event that their sentence is lifted or served out. And if they are sentenced to life, then it's still murder to kill them because the government still acknowledges that they have a right to their life --- it's just to be spent under close supervision to ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens.