4 ms·

Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? Clearly that is false: not all criminals should be released after bei

Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? Clearly that is false: not all criminals should be released after being arrested (as an extreme example, if a man goes on a rampage and shoots 20 people, clearly he should not be out on bail pending trial). Obviously the judge made a mistake in believing Kevin was a security threat, but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial. Meanwhile, in China, you have bookstore owners, bankers, and government officials "disappearing" left and right.

gnaritas 11y ago
> but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial. There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.
- argonaut 11y ago
  No. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.
  - hnbroseph 11y ago
    and the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    Obviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.
    - argonaut 11y ago
      It is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        Yes, it is obvious that allowing the government to jail people an undetermined amount of time before a trial is defacto punishing without trial and unethical. Even "alleged" serial killers deserve a speedy trial because they aren't guilty until proven so. Rights aren't about the governments interest, they're about ours, and allowing detention without trial for years at a time is wrong under all scenarios. I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.
jotux 11y ago
>Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.

gnaritas 11y ago

> but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial. There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.

argonaut 11y ago
No. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.
- hnbroseph 11y ago
  and the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Obviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    It is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      Yes, it is obvious that allowing the government to jail people an undetermined amount of time before a trial is defacto punishing without trial and unethical. Even "alleged" serial killers deserve a speedy trial because they aren't guilty until proven so. Rights aren't about the governments interest, they're about ours, and allowing detention without trial for years at a time is wrong under all scenarios. I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.

jotux 11y ago

>Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.