Our rights as Americans are based on the Constitution.
Just one problem: the Constitution was written in the 1780s, when slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and people thought wigs were cool. So are the rights in that document set in stone? Is the Constitution a living document that needs reinterpretation when society changes?
The issue gets messier when you're talking about criminal activity. Many people believe that criminals should have a different (read: less awesome) set of rights, that they forfeit some of their constitutional freedoms when they decide to steal, murder, extort, hack, drive drunk, or talk crap about The Bachelor.
In Miranda v. Arizona, Warren was very clear that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone; you don't have to earn your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by being a good citizen.
Questions About The Constitution: Living or Dead?
- Why does the majority opinion state that suspects should be given rights? They're criminals.
- Why shouldn't suspects be given rights? They're people too.
- Where does Harlan stand on the rights of criminals?
- What does Harlan say about the rights of society at large?
Chew on This
Suspects haven't been convicted of anything, so they should have all the rights of any citizen.
Sorry, but if the police believe you've violated society's rights, you've broken the contract and given up the freedoms and privileges that everyone else gets.