3 ms·

Don't equate the term "accused" with the term "convicted". They mean totally different things. We have no evidence that detritus has been convicted of any cri

by frobozz 13y ago

Don't equate the term "accused" with the term "convicted". They mean totally different things. We have no evidence that detritus has been convicted of any crime, so is not in the same situation as the subject of the article. Obviously it isn't enough to say "I reckon he's a bad man, strip him of his rights", but once someone has been convicted, there are certain rights that they rightly lose (e.g. if they are given a custodial sentence, they no longer have liberty). There may be arguments as to why this should be a right that even convicted criminals should retain, but that is a totally different argument to whether an accusation is sufficient to remove someone of their right to privacy.

grey-area 13y ago
We have no evidence that detritus has been convicted of any crime, so is not in the same situation as the subject of the article. Under UK law (RIPA), I think he is. If he is accused of a crime, and the police want him to decode information, he has no recourse and will be sent to jail for not doing so. Don't equate the term "accused" with the term "convicted". They mean totally different things. What I was trying to get at was that the word terrorism has been used to scare people into judging others when in fact there is no solid proof - for example in the case of David Miranda, his rights were infringed on the basis of an accusation of association with terrorism. Sorry I didn't meant to imply that in this particular case the man was only accused, not convicted, though it was not an act of terror, only being involved (how involved?) in planning an attack. There are degrees of evil when it comes to attacking other people, from association, through proven plans, through actually carrying out an attack (which is far worse). I think it's important to distinguish these degrees and not switch off all judgement when the word terrorism is mentioned, and I don't think that your rights should vary depending on which category of person you are - everyone should be equal under the law. The most evil criminal in our country should have the same rights as everyone else, because otherwise everyone's rights will gradually be eroded.
- frobozz 13y ago
  I don't think RIPA even requires an accusation. A complete innocent who is not under suspicion of anything can be served with a disclosure requirement if they hold the key to information that the authorities desire. This is a sorry state of affairs, leaving us in a situation where all we can do is trust the judgement of those in power not to abuse it (not much hope there), and the judiciary to keep them in check if they try (only slightly more hope there). I agree that there often seems to be a bit too much waving around of "terrorism" to justify government infringement of rights. However, I still disagree with your assertion that the most evil criminal should have the same rights as the rest of us. This should certainly be true until conviction and once their conviction is spent, but as I mentioned before, a convicted criminal (in the case of a custodial sentence at least) quite rightly loses freedom of movement. Freedom of association is rightly withheld from prisoners released on licence. Convicted prisoners also lose the right to vote, which is arguable as to whether or not that is right. There is clearly a list of rights that can rightly be withdrawn from convicts, so the question is which rights belong on that list and which ones don't? Bear in mind that poorly worded laws such as RIPA may come about because of a desire to keep that list as short as possible, constraining the rights of all of us, instead of just those who have, by their own conscious action, infringed on the rights of others.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Sure, I think we mostly agree and you're quite right on this point. Clearly someone convicted has to serve a sentence, which comes with various restrictions, but I don't think that should have bearing on any new trial, and I think their rights should not otherwise be curtailed in trials on other offences, otherwise you get something more like the three strikes laws in the states, where once convicted it is far more difficult to be redeemed. I think RIPA came about more as a way to make the work of investigators of terrorism easier, and it was just badly written and too broad.

by frobozz 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

We have no evidence that detritus has been convicted of any crime, so is not in the same situation as the subject of the article. Under UK law (RIPA), I think he is. If he is accused of a crime, and the police want him to decode information, he has no recourse and will be sent to jail for not doing so. Don't equate the term "accused" with the term "convicted". They mean totally different things. What I was trying to get at was that the word terrorism has been used to scare people into judging others when in fact there is no solid proof - for example in the case of David Miranda, his rights were infringed on the basis of an accusation of association with terrorism. Sorry I didn't meant to imply that in this particular case the man was only accused, not convicted, though it was not an act of terror, only being involved (how involved?) in planning an attack. There are degrees of evil when it comes to attacking other people, from association, through proven plans, through actually carrying out an attack (which is far worse). I think it's important to distinguish these degrees and not switch off all judgement when the word terrorism is mentioned, and I don't think that your rights should vary depending on which category of person you are - everyone should be equal under the law. The most evil criminal in our country should have the same rights as everyone else, because otherwise everyone's rights will gradually be eroded.

frobozz 13y ago
I don't think RIPA even requires an accusation. A complete innocent who is not under suspicion of anything can be served with a disclosure requirement if they hold the key to information that the authorities desire. This is a sorry state of affairs, leaving us in a situation where all we can do is trust the judgement of those in power not to abuse it (not much hope there), and the judiciary to keep them in check if they try (only slightly more hope there). I agree that there often seems to be a bit too much waving around of "terrorism" to justify government infringement of rights. However, I still disagree with your assertion that the most evil criminal should have the same rights as the rest of us. This should certainly be true until conviction and once their conviction is spent, but as I mentioned before, a convicted criminal (in the case of a custodial sentence at least) quite rightly loses freedom of movement. Freedom of association is rightly withheld from prisoners released on licence. Convicted prisoners also lose the right to vote, which is arguable as to whether or not that is right. There is clearly a list of rights that can rightly be withdrawn from convicts, so the question is which rights belong on that list and which ones don't? Bear in mind that poorly worded laws such as RIPA may come about because of a desire to keep that list as short as possible, constraining the rights of all of us, instead of just those who have, by their own conscious action, infringed on the rights of others.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Sure, I think we mostly agree and you're quite right on this point. Clearly someone convicted has to serve a sentence, which comes with various restrictions, but I don't think that should have bearing on any new trial, and I think their rights should not otherwise be curtailed in trials on other offences, otherwise you get something more like the three strikes laws in the states, where once convicted it is far more difficult to be redeemed. I think RIPA came about more as a way to make the work of investigators of terrorism easier, and it was just badly written and too broad.