Fluffy Toddler Bunny
260 PostsKarma: +32/-1
This took me a lot of thinking, and I might not be done yet. A criminal's rights are always going to be revoked. What we call human rights are more like civilized privileges. Yes, it's good to fight for everyone to have equal rights who should have a chance in life...so, this guy revoked his daughter's right to continue living if she wanted, I'm guessing it's because she was female and it's offensive in some cultures for a mother to give birth to a baby that isn't male? It's sadly common enough to be a safe guess, and that's why, say, people fight for women's right and children's rights in places where men's rights and adult's rights are a given.
What it looks here to be is not a general question of murderer's rights, but religious rights. They would be separate issues, but they intersect in the same person. And that makes it gross to me that someone's so concerned about feeding this monster at all, let alone how.
But if we revoked this criminal's rights all the way, we would have someone dismember and bury him the same way he did his victim. Why draw the line at freedom? (Rhetorical question. Obviously, I wouldn't want him out in society near any small children, even if he only abused and murdered his own.) Why draw the line long before dietary preferences?
Ideally, the definition of human rights should be 1.) that we all have the same ones, and 2.) mine end where yours begin. So, we'd both have the right to privacy and we'd both have the right to pursue knowledge. If I exercise my "right" to pursue knowledge to the point of invading your privacy, that's not a right anymore...unless I relinquish my own "right" to privacy, because we're supposed to have the same ones for the word "right" to continue having any meaning. That means no revoking any, between us.
I guess ideally, dealing with criminals would be in a way that allows society to navigate the challenges of coexistence. We should revoke as much of the criminal's civilized privileges as endangers non-criminals for that criminal to exercise them. The question shouldn't be whether the sentence is harsh enough, rather, does it put this person and this society in a better position? I'm still all for justice that would be rehabilitative rather than simply containing and/or punishing people. Keeping the meals vegetarian will not convince this person either way that what he'd done to his daughter was wrong (not only "consequences not worth the effort" but "wrong, evil, bad...wrong") so...it feels gross to type it, but I've got to say, let him have his vegetarian meals. And some sort of sensitivity training, or therapy for his issues of violent tendencies towards baby girls.