> Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function?

> Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? That is not what I said, and it not the most charitable interpretation of what I said either. Of course these choices aren’t made by a single guard. But there is no evidence that in this case it was not done for reasons that were reasonable. If it comes out that it was done purely as punishment, and not to assess what the fuck had just happened, I’d agree with you. Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful. You can separate the forest from the trees; in fact, you must. Sometimes, the justice system incarcerates innocent people and abuses prisoners. That’s fucking awful, and we need to fix it. But also, sometimes, the justice system works properly and locks up actual criminals who have committed actual crimes. SBF is one such case. There is no evidence he has been abused, unlike other criminals who had been abused. If you want to make this an argument about whether incarceration is beneficial at all, or if we should focus on better rehabilitation, I’d almost certainly agree with you, but that’s not the discussion we’re having, and it isn’t the system we have. [edit] > I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Please. I’m very aware of this. Your extremely confident belief that you are right is clouding your ability to actually see what I’m saying. SBF is, in fact, a convicted criminal. He was considered innocent until he was, ahem, proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. They deliberated for less than an hour, I assume because the evidence was apparently very clear. Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I’m done with this conversation, mostly because the rate limiting is annoying. Have a lovely weekend.