If you've been found not guilty of a crime in the US and admit to it afterward, you cannot be prosecuted again by protection of Double Jeopardy, correct?
Is that not the same thing as saying some rights are more important than others?
And is (2) and (3) not just variations on (1)?
I would say that (2) and (3) go further than one. You could say that they are subsets of (1).
I was thinking, for example, one person's right to freedom from violent crime over another person's right to not be put on trail again for the same crime.
> I would say that (2) and (3) go further than one. You could say that they are subsets of (1).
Agreed.
I would say there is a moral duty not to commit violence against others, and there is a moral right to defend one's self, but I don't see how you really guarantee "right to freedom from violent crime", so it really seems more like a dubious promise. This may be a consequence of my general skepticism of positive rights.