3 ms·
I don't think detaining a criminal is the counter-example you want to be using here. If anything, the horrific and egregious ways that the incarcerated are trea
by EatingWithForks 3y ago
I don't think detaining a criminal is the counter-example you want to be using here. If anything, the horrific and egregious ways that the incarcerated are treated is proof that the government is incapable of not further harming people who they deprive of human rights.
- janalsncm 3y agoThe point is that you cannot categorically say that human rights should not be suspended for any reason. The fact that a particular implementation happens to be unpleasant and at times unfair does not 1) suggest that human rights should never be suspended or 2) suggest that the alternative would not be at least as unpleasant. Few people would suggest that not having prisons is a better alternative than having them, however unpleasant. Similarly, in a world of deinstitutionalization it seems unlikely that 500k people living on the streets is the best of all possible worlds.
- EatingWithForks 3y agoI'm merely pointing out that the criminal system is an extremely poor example that the government won't further abuse people once it takes their civil liberties. If anything its an example that suggesting to bring back asylums should be considered synonymous to an advocacy where the abuse of detained people is taken into account as an acceptable cost. But mind you: The last time we implemented detaining people, this was in border control, and resulted in the border patrol trafficking children through abusing the child separation policies at the time. There are still tens of thousands of missing children from this policy, implemented for a scant few years.