[chii]

they do, but that right also comes with responsibility, which by virtue of them committing a crime, they have to answer for. If they escape the authorities, freezing their financial accounts is not completely out of the ordinary, and forces them to confront the authorities.

So yes, they have the right to buy food, but also the obligation to answer for their crimes in an open court. Can't have one without the other.

[engineer_22]

But if they haven't been to court yet, then they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Is it ok to prevent an innocent person from buying food?