4 ms·

Even though that is something guaranteed by something called the 'Bill of Rights' it's really more of an implementation detail of the general mission of the gov

Even though that is something guaranteed by something called the 'Bill of Rights' it's really more of an implementation detail of the general mission of the government. A speedy trial just ensures that the government must treat like things the same and different things differently. Without the 'speedy' provision then an innocent person could conceivably be treated as a guilty one by delaying trial. Similarly, the right to an impartial jury ('a jury of one's peers' isn't in the Constitution) is a check on arbitrariness on the part of the courts. So the first principle is that we're innocent until proven guilty and that like things should be treated alike and different things should be treated differently.

frig 17y ago
Right, but the point is that the "right to a trial" (at all): - is a positive right (to have a jury trial at all implies judge, jury, etc., all of whom have better things to do with their time than listen to two losers argue back and forth, and thus somehow someone is going to be compelled to provide for the trial, either directly -- jury duty -- or indirectly -- via taxation) - that a positive right makes it into the bill of rights means positive rights as such are not verboten, or somehow anathema to the founders' sensibilities - or it's an entitlement (which is closer to the truth), but then again there's no problem with entitlements being enshrined in the bill of rights I've got a special place in my heart for people who use the positive/negative distinction as a kind of club; cf my other post in this thread to see the origin of the notion in modern discourse.