Why do criminals have the same rights as honest citizens?
362185
its nuts, more people try to protect the criminals instead of the victims.  Now days if some one brakes into your house and hurts them selves doing it they can sue your ass for everything you have left.
673955
I agree , they have done nothing to get those rights , but break our laws . The American citizens have worked to make this country and just because someone sneaks in illegally and take free what we all work so hard for.\n We had to fight to make our country what it is today and if they want what we have then fight for their own country . It's easy to go to another country that has what you want , but it's hard to stand up and fight for freedom in your own country . Make your country better , we have enough problems here .\nIf you work and save for things and someone breaks into your home and starts living with you and taking your things , what would you say ?
908335
I don't really understand the question.  As a citizen you have the rights of legal and political nature as guaranteed by the Constitution.
334070
Because we all have a Constitutional right to be tried by a jury of our peers.  We are so used to this that we often take it for granted.  Imagine if there were no juries, and one judge could decide whether or not someone was guilty of murder?  Imagine if that one judge was corrupt or prejudiced?  We are all very lucky that we can be tried by our peers, and not be put in jail simply because one man thinks we should.  In order to enjoy all the privileges of democracy we all have a civic duty to vote and to sit on juries.
474469
Well, if you read the text of most (most) of the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution, it says "no person"  rather than "no citizen".... which kind of begs the question how some conservative strict constructionalists can argue that "person" really only means "citizen"...\n\nBut I've heard a lot of people say that they don't think non-US citizens should have rights. What's even more frightening is that a lot of people I've talked to think that even US citizens shouldn't have any constitutional protections if they are SUSPECTED of being involved in terrorist activities. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept is totally out of the window. At least, according to the Bush administration's current policies (see US v. Padilla).\n\nI'm just stocking up on popcorn (and canned goods) and waiting for the fireworks to start.
799300
Nope. Technically, a criminal is someone who does something wrong legally. He's taking a legal action, government has the right to war. It's not illegal.
901238
Justice is reserved for those who acquire power in central or state government. It is for them who have lot of money white or black... no body can touch them... even if you are a gangster you can rule the land from behind the bars and enjoy the services of jail personnel as your bodyguards... \n\nForget about justice for common people.
877310
Many prefer security to freedom, becuase they don't ever attempt to utilize their freedoms, so they don't realize when they have lost them.\n\nI'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. And I try to remind people that we only have those freedoms that we can defend. And we only have those rights we choose to fight for.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
118076
Because felons violated societies rules to the extent that they gave up their rights as citizens, usually infringing on someones right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.  Not being able to vote again is part of the consequence of their crime.  If criminals don't like the consequence it is very simple don't break the law.
828971
Let's take robbery.  You take something from someone else that doesn't belong to you.  It is a crime because you are violating someone else.  That is against our moral code.  When you break moral code there is a chance that your government has passed a law saying that it is illegal to do so.  The laws are in place so that everybody doesn't go around violating others.  The punishment is set by standards of society.  It is also set by what the perpetrator has done in his past (aka prior record).  That determines the sentence for the crime.  The punishment should be putting that person in a place where they have to reflect upon their crime and find the wrong in what they did so that hopefully they will never do it again.\nI hope that answers you question.
947810
all government agencies are run in black and white, right or wrong, up or down, with nothing in the middle. this is the only way they can function constitutionally (otherwise, they would treat some people one way and other people another way. all goverment agencies must react the same way to all people.)\n\ntherefore, "right" and "wrong" are decided by the lowest common denominator. look at airline security. nail clippers are contraband? all liquids over 5 ounces? this is ridiculous, yet dictated by a single occurance.\n\nthe single greatest constitutional protection against the government is the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." they cannot punish you for what they think you will do, only for what you have done. imagine the chaos if they could imprison us if we looked at a bank the wrong way, or thought about killing someone.\n\nwhat went wrong with social services is that somewhere along the line, society decided to allow social services to determine "threatening situations" rather than actual transgressions. in any government agency where this is allowed (e.g. public schools and their metal detectors) things go to hell very quickly.
795198
Because criminals feed on society like maggots on meat.  They ruin a good thing without any redeeming qualities.  Criminals have the ability to turn around like any sinner, but as a group, the cop view is accurate.\nhttp://judgeright.blogspot.com
228400
My door is always open for sure.  I figure whomever is supposed to come will come.  I'm not in charge of fate or the destiny of others.  I don't believe in security - that it exists is a fallacy.  An open door to a criminal creates suspicion and they won't have it...they'd rather break and bust their way in.  An honest person would feel normal walking through my open door as they are 'open' themselves.  So it makes sense to leave the door open for honest folks, and know that an open door is a closed door to criminals who only always see only closed doors waiting for them to manipulate a way open.
1159144
you've answered your own question-they are corrupt. It's also easier work than catching criminals.
820012
That's a very good question.  For most of society it is a good deterent, but so are the values of those same people.  The threat of prison will not deter some people from doing anything, that's a sad fact that I've seen thouands of times.  The reality is that prisons are NECESSARY because they keep criminals isolated from society and will at least prevent those who are locked up from committing crime.  Of course there are organized crime bosses who get locked up and still run things from the inside, but that's a whole different situation than your run of the mill burglar, etc.
1066385
Excellent question? It becomes illegal if you have something to hide. If democracy, freedom of speech etc. were really applied, then people would not be jailed for questioning -e.g. Zundel who questioned the holocaust has been jailed. Why?\n\nThank you for your much admired bravery.
1124258
Legal immigrants are allowed to have MOST of teh rights to which citizens are entitled.  In general, this includes ownership of property, and  the right to keep and bear arms.