Can Human Rights Be Taken Away for Planning a Crime?

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution firmly establishes that due process, or a criminal conviction, is the only legal mechanism for removing onersquo;s human rights. This principle is deeply rooted in the early Colonial Constitutions, which specifically underscored the importance of due process as the greatest protection of human rights.

What is the Foundation of Human Rights?

Human rights, as understood by the founding fathers, are considered God-given. However, these rights are not absolute. The purpose behind these rights is to protect the well-being and welfare of all, rather than to harm or exploit others. Planning a crime inherently goes against this purpose, as it aims to harm onersquo;s neighbor, thereby placing onersquo;s own rights at risk through their own actions.

Rights and Responsibilities

According to the founding fathers, rights are meant to be for the righteous. Therefore, if one chooses to act against the societal good, their rights can be seen as forfeited through due process. This is not a case of the government taking away rights but a result of an individualrsquo;s actions that contradict the very purpose of owning those rights.

Verification of Facts in Due Process

One of the key aspects of due process as mentioned in early Constitutions involves the verification of facts. Simply planning a crime is not enough to automatically deprive someone of their rights. However, if evidence is found of actions that support criminal planning, such as phone calls, texts, or the purchase of materials for the crime, it may result in charges such as conspiracy to commit a crime and a subsequent criminal conviction. In such cases, an individual might lose their rights.

Legal Limitations on Thought Crimes

While it is often debated, it is important to clarify that one cannot be legally charged for ldquo;thought crimesrdquo; without sufficient evidence of intent to act. However, actions or steps taken towards committing a crime, such as preparing materials, can result in legal charges and the deprivation of rights without a formal conviction. For instance, stockpiling weapons or explosives, even as components, may be viewed as an attempt and lead to arrest for possession of illegal materials.

The Role of Investigation and Evidence

The state of planning and the steps taken towards a crime are critical in determining whether rights can be deprived. If the government has evidence of a conspiracy that has advanced significantly towards a criminal goal, the conspirators can be arrested. The conspiracy itself is considered a crime, illustrating the seriousness with which the law regards criminal planning.

The immediacy and severity of the perceived threat also play a role in the legal proceedings. For instance, in cases of significant criminal conspiracies, extending to pre-trial investigations, individuals may be held in custody to prevent the commission of the crime. The Secret Service sniper incident, often mistakenly cited as an example of a hesitancy to act, clearly demonstrates that the whistleblower had legal authority to terminate the conspirator the moment they identified the threat.

Conclusion

While planning a crime does not inherently remove onersquo;s human rights, the actions and steps taken in furtherance of such plans can lead to legal consequences and the potential deprivation of rights. The balance between protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring public safety is complex but fundamentally grounded in the principle of due process and the rights themselves being held for the greater good of society.