Today at the end of the class I think it was Stephan who brought up the inalienability of human rights. We all understand that human rights is universal and should be applied to all humans even if they happen to be a sociopath or psychopath. However if someone is one of the two, where does human rights stand with them?
One thing that I don't understand is that if human rights is supposed to be justified and applied to everyone what happens to those who don't respect those inalienable rights? If a psychopath decides to kill someone should they not be penalized for their actions just because they are a human being? Wouldn't we in fact be uplifting them in a direction that would cause them to do more harm because we do not punish them? If someone commits a heinous crime towards another human they have already violated that person's rights as a human being; so I don't think that there rights should be respected in the least bit. They become null and voided. I'm not saying that person should not be considered a human being because that fact cannot be ignored, but the law is clear to a certain extent even if the person does not have the ability to make morally right decisions there is a system set in place to help them respect those who do have that capability.
Another thing that stood out to me was when we spoke about the book that Nicole read, even though the man in the book did commit the crimes he did and had the mindset he had he is still considered to be a human being, yet he knew what he was doing was wrong how do we just set that aside? We can't. Allowing someone to hide behind the fact that they are human isn't going to bring justice to those who the wrong committed injustice to. I honestly think that it depends on the circumstances when dealing with who deserves what rights, and that depends on their actions.
