3 ms·

> Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in ja

> Maybe it’s even appropriate that the legal standard to get secondary physical screening during air travel is lower than the legal standard to get thrown in jail? No. That's a subversion of due process and politicians who support such systems are enemies of the American people.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
It does seem a little odd, to me. If somebody tries to bomb a place, and the government screwed up the chain of custody on the evidence, of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned (see cases like Mapp V. Ohio). In addition, they have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Throwing someone in jail for years is the most severe of civil rights violations if unwarranted, justifying a very high standard of evidence. Perhaps the evidence our suspect bombed a plane wasn’t quite strong enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”, but they did lose a civil case from the victim’s families under “preponderance of evidence”. Whence cometh the opinion that “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be the standard of evidence before someone is searched before boarding a plane? When attempting to board an airplane, where different levels of physical screening take different amounts of time and resources to perform, and it’s not practical to fully screen everyone, we ought to apply the same legal standards of a criminal conviction to differentiate different levels of screening? Even if there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the person bombed a plane before, we ought to let them through anyway without even patting them down? Do we need a jury of peers at the ready at every checkpoint to make this determination? Would you also apply this same standard before someone could be restricted from admittance to the halls of congress, to Fort Knox, or to a warehouse in a major city storing many tons of seized fertilizer? For reference, here’s a full list of the standards of evidence in the US, ordered from weakest to strongest: 1. Some evidence 2. Reasonable indications 3. Reasonable suspicion 4. Reasonable to believe 5. Probable cause 6. Some credible evidence 7. Preponderance of the evidence 8. Clear and convincing evidence 9. Beyond reasonable doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
- gumby 6y ago
  How about just seeing if they are carrying a bomb? The additional scope creep reduces the chance of a bomb being detected. Sure, a trained person can probably kill with dental floss, but nowadays between the armored cockpits and the willingness of passengers to swarm a bad guy the risks of anything but a bomb are pretty low.
  - shajznnckfke 6y ago
    Yeah, it could well be the case that our scanning technology has improved to the point that we can efficiently screen everyone without any need to single out people that get flagged. Then again, there was also lots of resistance to the introduction of this improved scanning tech too (people seeing blurry monochrome outline of human genitalia is apparently a major civil rights violation). It seems like people are in opposition even to improvements in the screening process that make it more effective, and therefore fairer (less need to single flagged people out for a pat down).

shajznnckfke 6y ago

It does seem a little odd, to me. If somebody tries to bomb a place, and the government screwed up the chain of custody on the evidence, of course they shouldn’t be imprisoned (see cases like Mapp V. Ohio). In addition, they have a right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Throwing someone in jail for years is the most severe of civil rights violations if unwarranted, justifying a very high standard of evidence. Perhaps the evidence our suspect bombed a plane wasn’t quite strong enough for “beyond reasonable doubt”, but they did lose a civil case from the victim’s families under “preponderance of evidence”. Whence cometh the opinion that “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be the standard of evidence before someone is searched before boarding a plane? When attempting to board an airplane, where different levels of physical screening take different amounts of time and resources to perform, and it’s not practical to fully screen everyone, we ought to apply the same legal standards of a criminal conviction to differentiate different levels of screening? Even if there’s “clear and convincing” evidence the person bombed a plane before, we ought to let them through anyway without even patting them down? Do we need a jury of peers at the ready at every checkpoint to make this determination? Would you also apply this same standard before someone could be restricted from admittance to the halls of congress, to Fort Knox, or to a warehouse in a major city storing many tons of seized fertilizer? For reference, here’s a full list of the standards of evidence in the US, ordered from weakest to strongest: 1. Some evidence 2. Reasonable indications 3. Reasonable suspicion 4. Reasonable to believe 5. Probable cause 6. Some credible evidence 7. Preponderance of the evidence 8. Clear and convincing evidence 9. Beyond reasonable doubt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

gumby 6y ago
How about just seeing if they are carrying a bomb? The additional scope creep reduces the chance of a bomb being detected. Sure, a trained person can probably kill with dental floss, but nowadays between the armored cockpits and the willingness of passengers to swarm a bad guy the risks of anything but a bomb are pretty low.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  Yeah, it could well be the case that our scanning technology has improved to the point that we can efficiently screen everyone without any need to single out people that get flagged. Then again, there was also lots of resistance to the introduction of this improved scanning tech too (people seeing blurry monochrome outline of human genitalia is apparently a major civil rights violation). It seems like people are in opposition even to improvements in the screening process that make it more effective, and therefore fairer (less need to single flagged people out for a pat down).