Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
Man's only inherent freedom is to breath - everything else must be earned. One does not get to eat in nature unless one goes out and work for it. If someone breaks a law which govern's society - the society has the ability to remove that individual from society either for a short period of time, or for an indefinite time.
This is incorrect every guarantee on all the legislations of western society at least base all it's assumptions on those inherent natural rights that i mentioned, to be justice the positive right or law must ajust to those. And that the society has the ability is sure thing, but is it justified?

Now if you wanting to bring morals into the scope of the discussion then we can talk about inherent freedoms - because that term necessates a discussion on moral and ethics.
It will be partially moral Red, but I want more the introduction of phylosophy that morals, wich i particualrily dislike, though i cannot deny their influence on human thinking.

However in the case of law - spefic punishments can be dealt out based upon the popular will of society. If the criminal elects to violated the law and is proven guilty - then society has the ability to ask for retribution for the transgression. For instance if the crime is murder - the individual accused and then convicted of said crime has deprived another individual of his inherent right to breath. What is a suitable punishment for the person convicted of denying another of his basic right to draw breath? Make that individual pay a fine? How much will this fine be? Should the criminal be expected to provide for the family of the individual he murdered for the length of life? (Not against that possiblity but it is another form of privation of freedom.) If an individual commits a crime and his convicted of said crime - the individual gets to suffer the retribution of the society for his acts.
I totally agree, but I don't see why it has to be privation of freedom. If you ask me: Could it be just a fine? Yes, or also a debt if he has to provide it.
I find the arguement that depriving a convicted criminal of his freedom after he has deprived others of their freedom - a little hypocritical.
Why? The state never has formally atributed itself the ability to judge the way a man carries his life (well in previous times yes), so the state judges only actions now, that's one of the principal reasons why the state cannot look at the causes that lead the man to murder or rape. But again this is a question of phylosophy, and looking at it from the phylosophy i think that the legislative system should change all it's penal background to fit the rights of the human being.

Again you would be slightly off - the moral comment was to make BP puke because of his statements. The trail process to convict law breakers is all about upholding the morals and ethics of the society which are the foundations of the law of that society - not necessarily ones based upon religion but the morals of the society at large. Murder is more then a religious moral violation - its the moral violation of another human beings right to breath.
Yes but the one that condems is the state, the subject could be accepted if the society convicted, but even there it's discussable for the same reasons that i gave already.

Punishment is all about retribution - Prevention is a side effect of the punishment. Depriving individuals of freedoms granted by society is well within the possiblities of society.
I totally agree with this, but some authors and members here believe that prevention is the justification, that's the basis of all penal system.

Now if you want to discuss inherient rights of man - you have to be willing to go beyond the right to breath - since all others rights are ones granted by society - or a higher power then the individual.
No, the society recognises those rights but the rights exists on the human for his quality of human, a construct of the human being cannot become the Leviatan and ignore those qualities. So those rights exists before the society, society only recognises them, though that might not seem so truth in the case of privation of freedom, and the circle closes again.