• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is due process a human right? (from a moral perspective)

Is due process a human right?

  • Total voters
    69

exoplanet

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
3,112
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We can use some of the language in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution as a basis for what due process is here.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If you have different ideas about what due process is, then answer appropriately and explain what you think is different. If you aren't satisfied with the poll options, then please explain your rationale below.

I think this is relevant now because it has become clear that some people think that this isn't a human right, but a privilege extended to certain classes of people e.g. citizens of the country where they are present. While there are legal questions about how rights are preserved and maintained in an international context but for this poll I just want to see how people feel from a moral perspective - it's not about specific legal mechanisms for enforcement.
 
Getting rid of due process for someone means no due process for anyone. It means anyone can be disappeared at any time for no reason, with no ability to defend themselves.
 

"Human rights" in a universal sense don't exist. I'm not really sure what you're appealing to outside of the laws of a nation state to justify the seemingly universal claim of "human rights".
 
Gozaburo said:
"Human rights" in a universal sense don't exist. I'm not really sure what you're appealing to outside of the laws of a nation state to justify the seemingly universal claim of "human rights".
Click to expand...
As I already explained, the legal enforcement mechanisms are irrelevant. The poll presents a moral question. It's an appeal to your personal morals, should you have any. If you don't have morals around the treatment of human beings then it seems like the most appropriate answer is "no".
 
The conversation on due process being a human right, moral, is not all that material to the discussion. Our reality is due process is a Constitutional Right which means the government has to address the issue no matter the application.

Granted the idea of due process has been watered down over the years in how the government tap dances around this right or argues who it applies to. It is reasonable to conclude thou that under current MAGA fascism there is no real interest on Constitutional restraint of the government.

Expect MAGA to continue to push those definitions and applications to the point that anyone, no matter citizenship status, can have their rights stripped away simply because the courts are not interested in crossing the lines from loyalty to Trump back to loyalty to the Constitution.
 
aociswundumho said:
So if a man violently rapes a woman in a dark alley, he didn't violate her rights because she never had any to begin with.

Is that your position?
Click to expand...

Obviously not. The man would go to jail since raping people in dark alleys is against the law.

If we're asking if she has rights in a universal sense - outside of mans law - that is a philosophical question which would need to be demonstrated as objective, which is infamously difficult.
 
A right only exists so long as it is enforced.

The idea of "natural" or "human" rights has a nice ring to it - saying something is a violation of one indicates a greater level of repulsion and condemnation - but what we ultimately mean is we all agree we really really really do not want these things to happen to us or others.

But they don't exist objectively. If you doubt me, go kick a sleeping and starving polar bear square in the ass and then convince it that you have a human right to life.




Due process: a constitutional right.
 
Gozaburo said:
"Human rights" in a universal sense don't exist. I'm not really sure what you're appealing to outside of the laws of a nation state to justify the seemingly universal claim of "human rights".
Click to expand...
So, you're saying that morality has no role in the making of laws or governmental processes?

Is it wrong for one government to execute an innocent person and totally acceptable for another?

The whole point of due process by government is to do right by the governed.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So, you're saying that morality has no role in the making of laws or governmental processes?
Click to expand...

In a subjective sense, it might. But if we're making universal claims about the 'existence' of 'human rights' then we're getting into making objective truth claims, which includes heavy philosophical baggage.
 

Declaring something exists mean they exists? In that case I'm a billionaire married to Sydney Sweeney!
 
Gozaburo said:
Obviously not. The man would go to jail since raping people in dark alleys is against the law.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm asking. I want you to say that the rapist didn't violate her rights, because she didn't have any to begin with.

Government-law has nothing to do with morality. The holocaust was legal ffs.
 
aociswundumho said:
That's not what I'm asking. I want you to say that the rapist didn't violate her rights, because she didn't have any to begin with.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand you want to reduce a philosophically nuanced subject to a false dichotomy.

aociswundumho said:
Government-law has nothing to do with morality. The holocaust was legal ffs.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Mr Person said:
but what we ultimately mean is we all agree we really really really do not want these things to happen to us or others.
Click to expand...

Subjective means it's a matter of opinion. If we all agree on something, then it's not a matter of opinion, therefore it is objective by definition.
 
Gozaburo said:
Yes I understand you want to reduce a philosophically nuanced subject to a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

I'll give you yet another chance:

If a man violently rapes a woman in a dark alley, he didn't violate her rights because she never had any to begin with.

Is that your position?
 
aociswundumho said:
I'll give you yet another chance:

If a man violently rapes a woman in a dark alley, he didn't violate her rights because she never had any to begin with.
Click to expand...

Subjectively, yes. If I wanted to appeal she objectively had rights, I'd have to appeal to some universal category like God which again, contains heavy philosophical baggage.

So if I want to argue for some abstract category like "human rights" or "universal morality" there are higher order things I'd have to justify first before asserting those things 'exist'.
 
Mr Person said:
A right only exists so long as it is enforced
Click to expand...
This.




Women had the right to attain abortions across the entire US - until they didn’t.

People had a right to be in the US - living and working and attending schools - until this Administration has decided that they don’t. Some of those people are currently in El Salvador. Maybe alive, maybe not.


Your rights only exist in so far as they are enforced and protected.
 
BirdinHand said:
Women had the right to attain abortions across the entire US - until they didn’t.
Click to expand...

No.

A woman, like every person, has the right to do what they will with their own physical body. If the state prevents her, then the state is violating her rights, hence the idea of inalienable rights.

Or consider the right to free speech. If the government censors you, it isn't "removing" your right to free speech, it's just violating it.
 
Not just the Constitution, but the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:​

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
_______
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
 
This was intended to be a poll around personal moral stances, not an attempt to describe objective truth or some functional definition. I mean, I appreciate lively debate and the points you're making, but I just want to be clear about my intent here.
 
"Due process" is a manifestation of another moral condition of "fairness". People are willing to accept all kinds of things, including punishment, if they find the process to be "fair". I've seen this in action throughout my career. What people find offensive is the perception of unfairness in the process, and governments lose their legitimacy when they are perceived to arbitrary and capricious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…