Tyranny

i guess i made that one up but here's a violent arrest over a pizza

Not a DVD theft, but Eric Garner was killed in the altercation of his arrest for selling single cigarettes

Right wingers say this about protestors or whistleblowers.

Left wingers say this about forced birthers or antivaxxers.

You with your amazingly void intellect: bOtH SiDeS

Slavery is legal in prisons here in the U.S.

Should they then also pay rent in prison? :D (not serious)

You lose your rights when you go to prison. Murderers shouldn't have a right to wage laws.

It was Mexicans too. It's where the "lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade" comes from.

If you're willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.

Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It's the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.

Did you know it's statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.

Ref:

• Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
• Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt

Which is why I refuse to call it 'marijuana.' It's a word making it sound Spanish and therefore a threat from down south. It's from Asia, not Latin America. The name, in English, makes no sense- unless you want to demonize it.

John Ehrlichman literally admitted it. https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional

Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.

I'm not sure how you made the jump from "removing rights" to "removing punishments." Even the U.S. constitution has explicitly protected rights for the convicted and we definitely still have prisons.

Your first problem was being in the South. Your second problem was expecting a red state to give rights to people. They're pretty big on taking them away. Nothing "Civil" about it.

Tired of telling it. It's a cliche anyhow.

Western legal systems are a fucking joke.

Do not confuse Western and American just because America is to the west. Western European nations operate differently from America which is a 3rd world country with a Gucci handbag.

They're better than systems that pre-suppose guilt and actually make you prove your innocence.

In those systems by the time you end up charged it's pretty much too late to do anything but get a softer sentence.

It's also worth noting that many of our justice system rights in the US have been severely eroded. Like the right to a jury trial, the prohibition on search and seizure without cause, the right to a lawyer, and the prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. With all of that compromised the predisposition of innocence is itself severely compromised.

You would convince me that your thinking processes have been muddied because you're bringing something that, insofar as it is true, is entirely irrelevant.

From personal experience, yes. My convicted abuser husband was allowed to continue to abuse my kids. They struggle with mental illness.

My friend's husband who was convicted of sexually abusing his children was given visitation with them. Two out of three are now dead after struggling with mental illness their whole lives because of their abuser's right to continue access. He's walking free after serving a fraction of his time.

There are thousands of other examples that don't come from personal experience.

This. If you are deliberating between several precautions that avert the same catastrophe, stop deliberating - just use all of them. Having to pick between precautions is only a problem if they are conflicting somehow, or if you have a limited "budget" - and neither is the case here.

As in, independent judical system, I would presume. Eg in the US, I believe, the president can put his guy as a supreme judge, but cannot remove him and cant really tell them what to do. On the other hand, in Russia, every time a major case happens, somewhere, a law school graduate shoots their brains out, as everything they learned in those years gets publicly humiliated and disregarded at a whim of crooks in power.

Read the username on the picture. The "rights" discussed are the right to own guns.

But here's the thing, a tyrannical government doesn't let the opposition out of jail. Curtailing rights is a dumb way to look at things because that doesn't happen.

Consider the January 6th insurrectionists. Should any one of them be allowed to own a firearm? No. It's not tyrannical to think that.

Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.

Should they be thrown in prison forever? No.

Rightwing black and white definitions are stupid, don't fall for them. It's not "always the case" that someone losing a right is sufficient for a tyrannical government.

Navalny shouldn't have been thrown in prison in the first place. It wasn't his loss of access to guns that made it possible for Putin to murder him in prison.

I hate to tell you this but usage makes definition, most modern dictionaries recognize hyperbole as an intensifier.

Is it grammatically correct? Hell no.

Is it real? Check for yourself.

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.

You're not describing a criminal, that's an ex-convict

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.

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.

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.