Class #3: Rights
Discussion Questions for Class on September 3
Related Readings: Hunter and Milofsky, Ch. 2, "Rights"; Roach, "Four models of the criminal process," and Friedman, "The crime victim movement in its first decade." Also, in class view video, What I Want My Words to Do to You 

These writing assignments are meant to help you think about the readings and to prepare you for class discussions. For that reason, when you write a response it is important that you give your opinions and that you relate your thoughts to the reading. Remember that these are exam questions and that they are graded as such. You ought to write them as though you are writing questions on a midterm or a final exam.

Respond to one of the following questions by writing a response on the class Discussion Board on Blackboard at least one hour before class on the date the question is listed. Put your name in the text of the question and give the question number as listed below. Without these I can't tell who wrote the question or what you are responding to. You then have until Midnight on the following Sunday of that week to revise your response if you wish to do so and to submit it for grading. To submit your responses, send them via email to milofsky@bucknell.edu.

Your final version of this question is due by midnight, Sunday, September 6.

3-1. What makes a right a right, and where do rights come from?

You have a discussion in Hunter and Milofsky that talks about rights in terms of their function and their logic. This does not necessarily match up with rights we are familiar with in America, like the right to free speech. There is room, consequently, for you to think on your own about rights are and where they come from. To say that they come from the constitution is one sort of answer, but it is not adequate because that means rights are a historical accident---the rights we have came about because a bunch of people at one point in history wrote them down and we follow them out of habit. Is there a higher authority for rights...God maybe? Or are rights all defined in terms of context? For example, we have a "right" to education that is legislative, not constitutional. Are there rights that we don't have...like a right to health care? Do rights still exist if we don't have them (like a right to health care or food)?

3-2. Hunter and Milofsky say that rights are inseparable from matched responsibilities. If that is true does that mean that rights are lessened if people do not follow through on their responsibilities?

Certainly if someone is irresponsible we still protect their rights. People who act in self-destructive ways still get medical care. People who violate the civil rights of others still are protected by laws pertaining to civil rights.

On the other hand, we as a collective need to protect ourselves and to protect individuals when others act in dangerous and irresponsible ways. This leads to a question about why people commit crimes and how we as a society ought to treat criminals. We might try to remove them from society, make them pay for their bad deeds, treat them as in need to education and socialization, or just not worry about them and use them as a negative example for others.

3-3. Does utilitarianism explain why people commit crimes, and does it provide a good framework for the way we should react to criminals?

Utilitarianism says that people try to maximize utility, or that they will carry out positive or negative actions if the rewards for them are positive. If we don't want people to act badly or if we want more people to act well, we ought to look at what incentives there are for behavior and shift those incentives to encourage the right kind of behavior. Where crime is concerned this might make us try to raise the price of crime by enacting longer sentences and harsher punishments. Is this a good idea?

3-4. Roach offers two different notions of rights and how the state ought to relate to these rights. What are rights and where do they come from in Roach's view?

On p. 89, Roach contrasts earlier models of crime control, that he describes as liberal, as viewing rights primarily in minimizing the intrusion of the state into individuals' lives. He goes on to offer two other models of crime, a family model and victimization models that emphasized prevention and restorative justice. Why do these involve different conceptions of "right" and what do they say about the state?

3-5. When Hunter and Milofsky talk about rights, one thing they emphasize is the right to safety. Does this mean that people who make others feel unsafe should be targets of attack to make society a better place?

This has two sides to it. We ought to be allowed to live safely without the feeling of being under threat or at risk. On the other side, we should not be obliged to be violent towards others. The inclination to be violent towards others might be part of the right to safety but it might also have to do with living in a violent situation where we might devalue the lives of others and being willing to attack their free access to spaces or activities.

The victims movement gives us one perspective on the right to safety since it grows out of the failure of that right to be respected. Think about the rights of victims.Then in light of that discussion tell whether this diminishes the rights of offenders.

A different perspective comes from our work in Northern Ireland. Sharp polarization and a history of conflict means that nearly everyone feels both somewhat unsafe in terms of sectarian violence and also is angry at the opposite sectarian group and is may consider violent or punitive action towards them (even if individuals do not act on this feeling). We might say that Northern Ireland has to make everyone feel more safe. Making people feel safe has resulted in the society becoming increasingly segregated and separated by sectarian group. How would you express the right to safety in this situation---is it the right to be protected or the right to live in a society that is not polarized?