Prompt: "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

Prompt: "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."

Many people may accord with the provided statement but in my views, the statement is not correct. The statement speaks about actions that should be taken against a criminal who knowingly commits his/ her crime but at the same time the statement does not speak about the kind of crime, the reasons behind crime and what compelled the person to commit the crime despite the person knew about it. Just a single word crime does not give a reason to take steps against the committer. If we believe the statement then probably it will be like being in accord with the hitlor's theory. No law in the world judges cases the way statement says. Also the aim of punishment should be to correct the falws lying in the root, it must not be to torture the accused. Directly grabbing a person's civil rights from him will be more like torturing,abasing, humiliating rather than correcting the flaws lying in his thoughts. By restraining from civil rights, we will do nothing more than impairing the person as it may lead to several unjustified consequences caused by his enemies seeking revenge. It will make him a servant of everybody. Simply like a robbery can not be compared with a rape and a rape can not be compared with murder and a murder can not be compared with merely giving threats and that can simply not be compare with illegal acquisition of land and that can not be compare with a conflict between 2 persons leading to a outrage, how can we compare 2 crimes equal. All of the above are crime and yet all of these affect the society adversly but to different extent. A murder definitely lead to more advese consequences, as it can effect a whole dependent family, than a theft which definitely does not yield to as worse scenarios as former. How can we conclude on a single decision for hundreads for different scenarios. Most of above stated crimes are committed knowingly only. There are more points need to be focused. One of them is what was there to force the person to act like that. A person could be blackmailed, he could simply be compelled by his mind or it could be result of an intense desire for revenge grown due to unjustice in the past. We must listen to the criminal before convicting his rights because civil rights provides groud level support to democracy and detaining rights in the proposed manner, in my views can not yield any result rather than torturing the person mentally.
Finally, I would like to agree with the fact the the person do broke the social contract but must not be deprived of his civil rights or the right to benefit from his/her own labour. We could reduce his/her rights till the time period of punishment but deserting the rights from him can not be a solution.