4 ms·
> 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, whi
by 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 agoNo. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.
- hnbroseph 11y agoand the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.
- gnaritas 11y agoObviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.
- argonaut 11y agoIt is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.
- gnaritas 11y agoYes, 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.