3 ms·

I'm not the OP, but personally, I see civility as a function of the rule of law. Rule of law is a spectrum, on one end is a place like say, Norway - where ever

I'm not the OP, but personally, I see civility as a function of the rule of law. Rule of law is a spectrum, on one end is a place like say, Norway - where everyone is treated with a minimum of respect, criminal justice is mostly reformative, where only a very, very small number of individuals at the top of the social hierarchy will be treated different, mostly, people are treated the same by the law. On the other end of the spectrum is a place like Somalia, the state has no respect for the individual, criminal justice is punitive and everyone is treated differently based on their social ranking. In general, the poorer and more dictatorial a country, the more we expect it to be on the low side of this spectrum, and the richer and democratic, the better it should be. The US is somewhere in the middle of these two, but for many of us, we would expect it to be higher up given the wealth of the country and the democratic nature of our government. I personally hail from a very poor country where our justice system is actually similar in rule of law to the one I feel Americans have. In terms of this trial, personally I feel locking manning up is punitive and not intended to be cohersive. It's intended to make an example. In fact, I'm not sure why she is being tried at all, I though we had double jeopardy laws, she already went to trial and was imprisoned by the wikileaks debacle. It seems the government is grasping at straws to imprison legal citizens for doing acts that should be rewarded (whistle-blowing). Using the law on an ad-hock basis is exactly the type of behavior that I was mentioning, putting us further toward the Somalia side of the spectrum where rule of law is secondary to rule of power.

rootusrootus 7y ago
This seems to boil down to a disagreement on coercive versus punitive, or more cynically, whether or not you happen to agree with Manning. The court already has an escape clause in place by capping the punishment at 18 months. Manning appears to be seeking that contempt of court be abolished altogether, leaving no way to compel witnesses to testify. All they would need to do is declare "I will not testify, you cannot make me, nothing will change my mind!" and they are let go. Independent of my opinion on Manning's situation, I am not sure that precedent is a net positive. If the punishment were indefinite, it would be a more interesting case. But since it is capped already, I tend to side with the court and let the clock run out.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  There are other variables: I'd agree with you much more if Manning hadn't already been tried and served time for the Wikileaks case. I also think 18 months is far more punitive than coercive. If it was a month, which is a terribly long time to be confined in a cage, I'd find it more acceptable. As it stands, 18 months is longer than many people serve for violent crimes. And this person already stood trial and was already imprisoned for this same case.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    I'm not sure what the proper length of time is, and I imagine there are as many answers as there are people. 18 months is a long time, for sure, but not unprecedented. There's a guy who has been sitting in jail for more than three years (IIRC) for refusing to decrypt evidence that might result in his conviction. His case has far fewer champions than Manning's, due to the nature of the charges, but he does have some people advocating on his behalf. As far as I know, there is no cap on the length of time he will spend in jail on contempt. He's also looking at a lengthy prison sentence if convicted, so his motivations are more personal.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Precedent... we have precedent for enslavement and pillory. That doesn't make it OK. In terms of the guy sitting in jail for 3 years. I've heard of that. I strongly feel he should be released or tried on existing evidence (no need to violate the 5th). Two wrongs don't make a right. The original comment we are answering seems to be correct: > This shows the whole world how hopeless the US injustice system is. None of this would be possible in a civilized country. Civilized being defined as the rule of law... it seems he is correct, as the proceedings against manning seem to violate the laws (both the 5th as well as double jeopardy) Precedent, other things being worse... those don't address the original argument: this is America's barbarism. The example of the guy sitting in jail in-definitively seems to only support this perception, not detract from it. Of course, you are free to perceive it as you like. Some things we'll never agree on. :)
- 7y ago

rootusrootus 7y ago

This seems to boil down to a disagreement on coercive versus punitive, or more cynically, whether or not you happen to agree with Manning. The court already has an escape clause in place by capping the punishment at 18 months. Manning appears to be seeking that contempt of court be abolished altogether, leaving no way to compel witnesses to testify. All they would need to do is declare "I will not testify, you cannot make me, nothing will change my mind!" and they are let go. Independent of my opinion on Manning's situation, I am not sure that precedent is a net positive. If the punishment were indefinite, it would be a more interesting case. But since it is capped already, I tend to side with the court and let the clock run out.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
There are other variables: I'd agree with you much more if Manning hadn't already been tried and served time for the Wikileaks case. I also think 18 months is far more punitive than coercive. If it was a month, which is a terribly long time to be confined in a cage, I'd find it more acceptable. As it stands, 18 months is longer than many people serve for violent crimes. And this person already stood trial and was already imprisoned for this same case.
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  I'm not sure what the proper length of time is, and I imagine there are as many answers as there are people. 18 months is a long time, for sure, but not unprecedented. There's a guy who has been sitting in jail for more than three years (IIRC) for refusing to decrypt evidence that might result in his conviction. His case has far fewer champions than Manning's, due to the nature of the charges, but he does have some people advocating on his behalf. As far as I know, there is no cap on the length of time he will spend in jail on contempt. He's also looking at a lengthy prison sentence if convicted, so his motivations are more personal.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Precedent... we have precedent for enslavement and pillory. That doesn't make it OK. In terms of the guy sitting in jail for 3 years. I've heard of that. I strongly feel he should be released or tried on existing evidence (no need to violate the 5th). Two wrongs don't make a right. The original comment we are answering seems to be correct: > This shows the whole world how hopeless the US injustice system is. None of this would be possible in a civilized country. Civilized being defined as the rule of law... it seems he is correct, as the proceedings against manning seem to violate the laws (both the 5th as well as double jeopardy) Precedent, other things being worse... those don't address the original argument: this is America's barbarism. The example of the guy sitting in jail in-definitively seems to only support this perception, not detract from it. Of course, you are free to perceive it as you like. Some things we'll never agree on. :)
7y ago