Originally posted by: complich8
I disagree. The fundamental purpose of law is to protect human social structures. Human rights are an afterthought. There are not many laws that permit things, but a LOT of laws that restrict them.
I was under the impression that people had certain things restricted in order to protect the rights of others. In that sense, the purpose of law is to protect human rights, as the restrictive laws are in place only to prevent infringement on the rights of other citizens.
Again, if you accept the universal right to life, then any criminal corrections systems are inherently unjust. This premise HAS to be discarded (or at least severely damaged) to rationalize the mere existence of such formal norm enforcement mechanisms.
How is it that any form of a criminal correction system violates the right to life? Perhaps I misunderstood, but I assume this is what you were saying. Aren't many systems that deal with criminal correction there to preserve the individual's right to life, and at the same time, to keep other citizens safe or to "reform" the criminal so that he or she can become a better member of society? I realize that this might not always be the case, but the ideal (for those not supporting the death penalty, at least) is to protect the rights of everyone - including the criminal.