QuoteI guess I'm a bit slow but it seems to me that incarceration itself denies one of the most basic of rights, to freely come and go as one pleases. If I were given the choice I would prefer to give up porn rather than be incarcerated, as I suspect most people would.
... BUT you cannot decide to strip such and such prisonner from such or such right...
How can you justify stripping such an important right from individuals and and at the same time assert that the rights of the same individuals cannot be stripped when it comes to trivial matters. It seems to me that , at least in coutries who laws are based upon Briytish Comon Law, that convicted criminals are in prision because they have deprived others of their rights and in doing so they have forfeited their rights.
Also I think re-habilitation is mostly touchy-feely crap. Criminals for the most part commit crimes to make a living and serving some time is just the cost of doing business to them. In the US a number of states passed "3 strikes and you're out" laws where three felony convictions gets you life without parole. In those places the crime rate dropped significantly because it was the same gropup of people committing the crimes. Once you start permantely taking them out of society the result is naturally less crime.
Of course there are nut cases that don't have a profit motive but then they are are beyond rehabilitation any way and the sooner they are out of bussines the better.
================
Back on topic.... EU Constitution from an outsider's point of view
1. I was always skeptical because of the socialist leanings of most "old" European countries. I didn't think it would take long for the realization to sink in that tax money would be, more or less permanently, flowing out of some countries and into others. IMHO, socialism/collectivism/communism or whatever name you prefer does not scale very well much beyond a family grouping. The larger the group the faster it fails.
2. Also if there were going to be a central law making body, upon which country's law would the new laws be based? Would they use British common law, the Napoleonic code, or some other tradition for their basis.
3. Also what language would such laws be written in? Anyone who has ever negociated or executed a contract understands that every single word is important. I can't see how laws could be flawlessly translated into a multitude of languages and retain their percise meanings, which is of course a requirement. Even if this were possible how would they be uniformily executed and interpreted in a multitude of cultures with a multitude of legal traditions?
4. From the outside looking in, it seems some of the wealthier countries such as France and Germany desire to increase their geo-policitcal and ecconomic power and more or less run things overthere. Many countries less prosperous are eager to go along for the ride so as to reap the ecconomic benefits. It seems to me the whole thing, a centralized European goverment, is pretty much unworkable.
5. From the comments in this thread it would appear that the proposed constitution was severely flawed. It seems that it was mainly about policy and not about fundamental principals. Probaly it was purposefully vague so that nobody had to commit to anything ans so that people in different counttries could be told different things.
======
Anyway those are my thoughts from a relatively uninformed point of view.
. I used the fonts and graphics from your DoTT template to remake the old DemoQuest Lec example. I couldn't use the DoTT template because it used 16 bit color. I dumped your GUI sprtes, reduced their color depth, and reincarnated them into a simple mini game example. You can get it here.