3 ms·

Forced labor is quite prevalent as state-sactioned punishment, and it is much better than other kinds of punishment that exist. I don't have problem with that,

Forced labor is quite prevalent as state-sactioned punishment, and it is much better than other kinds of punishment that exist. I don't have problem with that, that's one way how legal system pays for itself rather than siphoning fund from tax-payers' money. The difficult part for me was how opaque the process is, how the Chinese government just put people in those "camps" without due process. It is worrisome and frankly quite terrifying.

corty 6y ago
"Due process" did probably happen, at least the Chinese version of it. Even dictatorial regimes usually have to maintain some appearance of legitimacy for the things they do. That legitimacy might not be apparent or even visible for outsiders, because it is targeted to keep a sufficient majority of citizens at bay. And before you say "but 'due process' is well-defined anywhere", I've got a star chamber in Guantanamo to sell ;)
- beaunative 6y ago
  Well, if this due process means some opaque process that government employs to put people in those "camps" then by literal meaning there is a process, and it's done through that process. Yet I'd say that's very different from due process that we'd like to call it. In the very least the process itself should be well-documented and published, even if specific cases files are not available online for everyone. That's the very reason why the government called it re-education camps, because the government, even in Chinese context, should only act in the framework that laws defined, and in this case, they are not. I suspect that the Chinese government and the local Xinjiiang government expected criticism, and they are well-aware the policy is not ideal or just, and that's why they wouldn'put it into laws, because they are well-aware it would be impossible to pass. Since they can't identify who's terrorist, they round up every likely target, and put them under surveiliance just for caution. It should be said it was effective in achiving their goal, and they are aware of the collateral damage, but it's the cost they think they can afford.
  - corty 6y ago
    I'm not versed in Chinese law, but in Germany there are states where you can be imprisoned indefinitely for being a (vaguely (un)defined) danger: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/terror-abwehr-bayern-will-gefaehrder-unbefristet-einsperren-1.3397600 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/terror-abwehr-bayern-will... Of course there is some "due process" in that a judge needs to agree. But I guess some judge can always be found to agree to that vague stuff. So even in western rule-of-law societies, I think the Chinese situation could be justified in existing laws.
the_local_host 6y ago
Is a "legal system that pays for itself" even desirable? Having revenue at all would seem to bring with it all kinds of terrible incentives. Moreover if the full cost of incarceration is borne by the taxpayer, then everyone has an incentive to fix the underlying causes of imprisonment.
- beaunative 6y ago
  I would happily pour money from incarceration system into universal medical care and basic income, then we can talk about the incarceration system. Focus only on the incarceration system lose focus of how governmental budget works, and how society works. We don't even have generally available low-cost higher education yet. People always have this sense that we are responsible for prisoners, more than we are responsible for law-abiding citizens in worse conditions. We often ignored those who need it most among the general population, we only do things unless they become criminal, because a criminal is at least seen, tried, in court, in news report, and those non-tried people almost have zero visibility. We can see the prisoners, since they are in low-quantity, and wouldn't be too much burden on the state fund and we can not ignore them, because we put them there. And yet we ignore those can be ignored, the homeless folks on the streets of San Francisco and everywhere else. It creates a weird system where if you are in worse conditions, you might be better off committing a crime than being a law-abiding citizen. It happens often because it cheaper to build better prisons than to offer better social welfare system for everyone, not because we have a better sense of morality, but it made us feel better about ourselves.

corty 6y ago

"Due process" did probably happen, at least the Chinese version of it. Even dictatorial regimes usually have to maintain some appearance of legitimacy for the things they do. That legitimacy might not be apparent or even visible for outsiders, because it is targeted to keep a sufficient majority of citizens at bay. And before you say "but 'due process' is well-defined anywhere", I've got a star chamber in Guantanamo to sell ;)

beaunative 6y ago
Well, if this due process means some opaque process that government employs to put people in those "camps" then by literal meaning there is a process, and it's done through that process. Yet I'd say that's very different from due process that we'd like to call it. In the very least the process itself should be well-documented and published, even if specific cases files are not available online for everyone. That's the very reason why the government called it re-education camps, because the government, even in Chinese context, should only act in the framework that laws defined, and in this case, they are not. I suspect that the Chinese government and the local Xinjiiang government expected criticism, and they are well-aware the policy is not ideal or just, and that's why they wouldn'put it into laws, because they are well-aware it would be impossible to pass. Since they can't identify who's terrorist, they round up every likely target, and put them under surveiliance just for caution. It should be said it was effective in achiving their goal, and they are aware of the collateral damage, but it's the cost they think they can afford.
- corty 6y ago
  I'm not versed in Chinese law, but in Germany there are states where you can be imprisoned indefinitely for being a (vaguely (un)defined) danger: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/terror-abwehr-bayern-will-gefaehrder-unbefristet-einsperren-1.3397600 https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/terror-abwehr-bayern-will... Of course there is some "due process" in that a judge needs to agree. But I guess some judge can always be found to agree to that vague stuff. So even in western rule-of-law societies, I think the Chinese situation could be justified in existing laws.

the_local_host 6y ago

Is a "legal system that pays for itself" even desirable? Having revenue at all would seem to bring with it all kinds of terrible incentives. Moreover if the full cost of incarceration is borne by the taxpayer, then everyone has an incentive to fix the underlying causes of imprisonment.

beaunative 6y ago
I would happily pour money from incarceration system into universal medical care and basic income, then we can talk about the incarceration system. Focus only on the incarceration system lose focus of how governmental budget works, and how society works. We don't even have generally available low-cost higher education yet. People always have this sense that we are responsible for prisoners, more than we are responsible for law-abiding citizens in worse conditions. We often ignored those who need it most among the general population, we only do things unless they become criminal, because a criminal is at least seen, tried, in court, in news report, and those non-tried people almost have zero visibility. We can see the prisoners, since they are in low-quantity, and wouldn't be too much burden on the state fund and we can not ignore them, because we put them there. And yet we ignore those can be ignored, the homeless folks on the streets of San Francisco and everywhere else. It creates a weird system where if you are in worse conditions, you might be better off committing a crime than being a law-abiding citizen. It happens often because it cheaper to build better prisons than to offer better social welfare system for everyone, not because we have a better sense of morality, but it made us feel better about ourselves.