1) I have significant legal protections such that my freedom (and life) cannot easily be taken from me, and certainly not without a rigourous process which establishes a good reason for doing so.
(2) You have significant legal protections such that yourfreedom (and life) cannot easily be taken from you, and certainly not without a rigourous process which establishes a good reason for doing so.
(3) Joe has significant legal protections such that his freedom (and life) cannot easily be taken from him, and certainly not without a rigourous process which establishes a good reason for doing so.
Cons:
There are good reasons for incarcerating Joe (i.e. he is a violent criminal), but the rigourous processes required to prove the good reasons may interfere with, prevent, or delay his incarceration.
ETA: I find the other responses more than a little disturbing. To suggest that there are no cons of individual rights, and simultaneously that we must look elsewhere to see examples of limitations upon rights, implies a certain blindness to limitations of rights which do exist, arguably for good policy reasons, in countries like the U.S., the U.K., and Canada. Particularly post-9/11, individual rights have been significantly reduced, especially for particular demographics.
