3 ms·
After rereading the bill of rights I see your point, though it still seems like a very nuanced loophole that can and has been used to supralegally imprison and
by wu-ikkyu 10y ago
After rereading the bill of rights I see your point, though it still seems like a very nuanced loophole that can and has been used to supralegally imprison and abuse social deviants (i.e. political dissidents in the USSR, marijuana smokers in the US).
1. create a new classification of crime outside of normal criminal law (i.e. thought crime, racial impurity, religious heresy)
2. Streamline subjugation of undesireables by skirting the bureaucratic barriers of criminal law system
3. Profit
- rtkwe 10y agoWell yeah, the constitution is far from airtight and largely relies on the courts to fairly uphold the spirit of many of the clauses rather than a strict word by word meaning. And it's a fair way to write the founding document of a nation because it's impossible to codify every little case in a way that's not fatally brittle within 50 years. (PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. And examples from outside the US are practically useless because so many rights and powers differ between the US and even other close govenments like the UK.)
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago>PS: Imprisoning people for smoking pot isn't a good example here because it goes through the normal criminal system. In the 60's and 70's in the US it was not uncommon for parents to have their children committed to asylums because they were high on marijuana (it was called "reefer madness" after all). And even today recreational use of marijuana is considered a mental illness according the the DSM-5.