A person who knowingly commits a crime has broken the social contract and should not retain any civil rights or the right to benefit from his or her own labor.

The goal of every modern society is the presence of harmony and camaraderie amongst its citizens along with development, both financially and holistically. It has often remarked that this universe strongly values the principle of duality - just as light exists, so must darkness, sorrow and joy, good and evil. In certain cases, the forces of evil impede the progress of the good and hence stall the overall development of the society. This force of evil is often manifested as individuals who understand the gravity of their depraved actions and yet continue to partake in such illicit activities. Hence, for any society to develop and grow, there must be a system that reprimands such individuals and therefore, for such individuals the freedom to retain civil rights or the right to benefit from his/her own labour must be forsaken.

In this day and age, where we are bombarded with news from the various media organizations of depraved acts such as terrorism, murder, rape, it is therefore increasingly important to establish a form of deterrence to prevent such acts from recurring. For example, the 9/11 attacks in America where one of the most devastating attacks on humanity which resulted in the loss of around 3000 innocent victims. When America took a strong stance and went after the perpetrators without any remorse and did not provide them their civil rights, it set up a powerful message. This message had its weight and since then, there have been no such attacks on American Soil. Hence, this example portrays the importance of treating heinous crimes with gravity and not providing any sort of civil rights to the perpetrators.

Civil rights are those which include the right to vote and the right to participate in the election process of a nation. Another justification for taking away civil rights from individuals who have convicted of crimes which they knowingly convicted. is that there is often no benefit to society at large for providing these people such benefits. For example, let us consider the case of the Las Vegas Shootings which happened recently in which a single person took the lives of more than 160 innocent people who were there for a concert. This attack was planned well in advance and the person who conducted these attacks wanted to inflict as much destruction as possible. How can a society benefit from providing such individuals civil rights? Their acts of depravity certainly mirror their despicable state of mind and hence again they should not be given any such rights.

In contrast, one may argue that it is not humanitarian to take away another human beings civil rights and instead there should be a focus on the reformation of the person in question. This could be taken as the truth only for certain cases and not as a general law. There must be a strong deterrence for such individuals so that they do not commit such crimes and taking away their civil rights should act as a basic deterrent for such people. Unless we have data which clearly shows that taking away rights is detrimental to these individuals in question and leads to further recidivism, we cannot confirm any of these things and we are put under the impression that such people are just wishful thinking.

In conclusion, as we have seen from the aforementioned examples of the various crimes being committed, we need to have a strong approach to condemn such illicit behaviour. Unless there is a powerful deterrent to such acts, the society cannot develop and its people may suffer.