4 ms·

What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc

by tdhoot 7y ago

What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas.

arcticbull 7y ago
> What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? I'm suggesting that as someone who doesn't want crime to happen to them, this is the kind of thing you'd optimize for anyways. Jailing people in and of itself doesn't reduce crime, in fact, the US recidivism rate is so high, if you locked up innocent people and people guilty of low-level crimes you'd probably increase the crime rate. That's how ineffective America's police/prison industrial complex is at reducing crime. As such these procedures are something you'd want to keep people out of America's wildly ineffective prisons. > My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas. Sure. However, a rich man refusing to let the people of California onto their beach in support of exercising their constitutional rights isn't one of them. I'm not saying rich to engender animosity against his wealth, he earned it, that's great. I'm pointing out how many other options he has. He could literally use his money to build his own synthetic ocean in the middle of California and put a beach house on that. Instead, he's chosen to spend his largesse to keep Californians from being able to exercise their constitutional rights so he can have a slightly better view. That's the definition of a dick move.

by tdhoot 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

> What does strict policing have to do with civil rights, like the right to face your accuser, the right to a jury trial, protections against double jeopardy, etc.? I'm suggesting that as someone who doesn't want crime to happen to them, this is the kind of thing you'd optimize for anyways. Jailing people in and of itself doesn't reduce crime, in fact, the US recidivism rate is so high, if you locked up innocent people and people guilty of low-level crimes you'd probably increase the crime rate. That's how ineffective America's police/prison industrial complex is at reducing crime. As such these procedures are something you'd want to keep people out of America's wildly ineffective prisons. > My point being sometimes people vote or defend ideas that they believe are fundamentally right -- regardless of whether they themselves benefit from those ideas. Sure. However, a rich man refusing to let the people of California onto their beach in support of exercising their constitutional rights isn't one of them. I'm not saying rich to engender animosity against his wealth, he earned it, that's great. I'm pointing out how many other options he has. He could literally use his money to build his own synthetic ocean in the middle of California and put a beach house on that. Instead, he's chosen to spend his largesse to keep Californians from being able to exercise their constitutional rights so he can have a slightly better view. That's the definition of a dick move.