'Inalienable' is a rather strong word, isn't it?

[mrchapel]

then anything such as the death penalty is a violation of that inalienable right

So it would seem that 'inalienable' is just some nice little word we've tacked on for effect. Especially if everyone (including the government) can go around violating everyone else's rights and still claim the right was not 'alienated'.

I just remembered why I hate the government... too many loop holes in the legal language of our laws... especially all of those 'right to vote' amendments

[Azurain]

Mrchapel, you're missing a fundamental point. Having a right violated is not to have that right alienated. I could have an inalienable right to life, and be murdered. I did not lose my inalienable right to life simply because that right was violated. I still had that right. The point is that if you have an inalienable right, then that right cannot be taken from you in any way. It can still be violated, and remain an inalienable right! But it cannot be removed, or it was never inalienable.

So if we say a man has an inalienable right to freedom, then we cannot claim that he has surrendered that right by committing a crime. We can, however, say that he deserves to have his rights violated as a consequence of committing a crime.

Do you see the distinction between having a right removed and having a right violated? It's rather important to the crux of this thread.

[Deacon]

[quote="Azurain";p="400223"]I disagree with the death penalty simply because I think that the chance of killing even one innocent man (wrongly convicted) is unacceptable.[/quote]
Not to get off-topic, here, but how many deaths of innocent people caused by releasing the guilty out-weigh that objection as ot what is "acceptable"?

[Azurain]

Well, since we're off topic, the flip side to that is that I believe a life imprisonment sentence should mean exactly that. Life. Not twenty five years then parole. The rest of your life behind bars. If the severity of a crime and the evidence against the accused is so great that the death penalty is considered warranted, I'd say a life without parole sentence is best.

Now, we could get into the idea of the death penalty serving as a greater deterrant, and so eliminating it might cause more crime, but that's the exact same line of reasoning that would lead to the practice of dismemberment for theft and such. The sentence must be proportional and, imho, reversable to some degree.

[mrchapel]

Do you see the distinction between having a right removed and having a right violated? It's rather important to the crux of this thread.

Yes I think I understand.
Inalienable is more an internal idea, where as violation is more external, right?

My point is more: how good is it for your rights to be inalienable if they can be violated so easily? If you have a right to your life, but I can violate that right and murder you, then was the term 'right' really all that valid?

I think that relates to the topic title as 'inalienable' is a misleading term making your rights seem set in stone.

[Imperator Severn]

No, you're still missing the point. Even when someone murders you to death until you are no longer alive, you still have a right to live. Inaleinable means that no one can take away your right to live, which is false if the government can rightfully take your life. No murderer can ever rightfully take your life, so you retain your right.

[Grumlen]

If you want to go by definitions, heres one for ya thats also from webster:

alienate: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law

By this definition, which I would think would be more accurate in defining inalienable than "not being surrenderable," the government can take your right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness away as long as it is done within the due course of the law. Thus, I fail to see the problem as the government doesn't alienate our rights, at least not normally.

[mrchapel]

No, you're still missing the point.

No your missing my point and getting bogged down in the wording.

If you get "murdered you to death until you are no longer alive" your right was violated not taken away. I understand that.
So you have your right to life but someone else violated it, right?
You are dead!
No amount of saying the murderer is wrong is going to change that.

In relation to the death penalty: here we have the government saying the rights are inalienable in the (Declairation of Independence). Then (in the Constitutional Amendment 5 as Imperator Severn so kindly posted for us) these rights can be violated/depraved, by the same group of people who say the rights are inalienable, after due process of law. (Ironically these same people are the ones who make the laws... good thing we have that Bill or Attainder {sp?}) It seems to me that the word 'inalienable' is rather hollow.

(not a real quote just a creative way of expressing my opinion)
Government to the people: You have these rights give to you by the creator, but we can violate them through rules that we set up.

[Imperator Severn]

Did you read Grumlen's post at all?

[mrchapel]

running out of ways to say this...

'Inalienable' is a misleading term.

(and keep in mind the protectors of these rights are the same people who would be violating the rights in the instance of the death penalty, but that's off topic more a debate about the death penatly or trust in the gov't)

[Imperator Severn]

No, byt the definition Grumlen gave, which I have no reason to doubt, "inaleinable" means something cannot be transfered or taken in any specific act other than due process.

This is true of the laws of the US. Your rights aren't being violated when you are punished for a crime on the basis of a guilty verdict given by a jury of your peers. Your rights are taken away. These rights are inalienable, but due process overides that.


This reminds me of a similar debate in this forum in which someone thought the term "homicide" was misleading, because they assumed it meant murder, and not simply the killing of a human being.

[StruckingFuggle]

What are you using for your Webster definitions, Grumlen? I looked it up in mine and didn't find Due Process mentioned anywhere in "alienate" or "alienable", or even "inalienable".

But the point still stands - you can't make something sancrosanct and then say you can violate it by any means. If it can be taken it can be taken, and it can't be called "untakable".

[mrchapel]

The very fact that we needed to go to the dictionary to separate the meaning of inalienable and the significance of inalienable, even though its a word we are all introduced to in 3rd grade, should be enough to show that inalienable is misleading.

These rights are inalienable, but due process overides that.

If A overides B then A doesn't hold much value anymore, does it?

[Grumlen]

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona ... &x=10&y=14

That link ought to take you straight to the page. It doesn't say due process, but due course of law. I don't know how you must be screwing it up to not get the same definition that I got from http://www.webster.com.

[Dr. Tower]

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="400105"]
An addition, since I didn't see it before posting my reply: That's an interesting point, Deacon ... and for a moment I thought I was thinking of the wrong defintion of "inalienable" - but then I looked it up.

"Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright."

By definition, inalienable is something like a genetic predisposition to something (under current science) - it can't be taken from you and you can't choose to give it up.[/quote]

I think he got it from a physical dictionary, that was published in 1913, not from Webster.com