deej
Hello
Posts: 32
|
Post by deej on Apr 20, 2013 20:58:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 20, 2013 21:08:02 GMT
It's worrying that a public safety argument has been used to deny this person's human rights, when in fact there appears to be no reason.
|
|
deej
Hello
Posts: 32
|
Post by deej on Apr 20, 2013 21:10:58 GMT
It's worrying that a public safety argument has been used to deny this person's human rights, when in fact there appears to be no reason. I totally agree. This person has a right to a fair trial in the administration of justice like any other citizen of a democratic country. The rules shouldn't go out of the window just because he is a suspected terrorist. Anyhow, I'm of the opinion that it will be more in the interests of national security, public safety and justice that this man is given a fair trial. What has happened to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Apr 21, 2013 15:00:24 GMT
I don't really see the problem with him not immediately being read his rights. Doesn't everyone who watch TV know those?
I understand the problem of declaring him a continued threat or combat something or other and agree he should be treated like every other person with regards to his rights and duties, but if they read his rights to him later, doesn't that solve the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 21, 2013 15:11:36 GMT
I read that they are not going to read his rights when he is well enough to undergo investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Apr 21, 2013 16:23:47 GMT
Having terrorism defined as something else than crime and treated differently is dangerous. Both for the public perception and risk of romanticising of such actions, and for the civil liberties of the population in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Apr 21, 2013 17:27:21 GMT
I often wonder when I see police programmes where they are explaining to "suspects" (I hate the way they use that word instead of perpetrator) what they have done and use language they clearly cannot understand. Either foreign or hideously drunk people clearly some days cannot understand having to "accompany us to the station to be tested on the evidential breathalyser."
I honestly think that many haven't a clue what "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence" means at the time it is said.
|
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 21, 2013 22:28:55 GMT
Wikipedia has an interesting discussion on the right to silence: In England and Wales, the right of suspects to refuse to answer questions during their actual trial (the "right to silence", or the right to remain silent as it is now known) was well established at common law from the 17th century... However the right of suspects to refuse to answer questions before trial was not codified as Judges' Rules until 1912. Prior to 1912, while torture had been banned, the mistreatment of silent suspects to induce a confession was common and the refusal to answer questions was used as evidence against them. link Suspects have the right to silence because otherwise they would be mistreated during custody as law enforcement officers try to extract a confession from them. Since terrorists evoke so much venom, it is clear that they above all others need a right to silence. |
|
|
|
Post by Shake on Apr 23, 2013 4:20:06 GMT
I actually saw a poll tonight, running fairly even actually, asking whether he should be tried as a regular criminal in civil court, or as an enemy combatant in military court. It surprised me that the polling was so close (actually slightly ahead, IIRC, in favor of the latter option).
|
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Apr 23, 2013 8:10:21 GMT
This is why justice is so complicated to apply...  |
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 23, 2013 9:04:54 GMT
I actually saw a poll tonight, running fairly even actually, asking whether he should be tried as a regular criminal in civil court, or as an enemy combatant in military court. It surprised me that the polling was so close (actually slightly ahead, IIRC, in favor of the latter option). I suspect the motivation is anger rather than justice. However, if Dzhokhar is tried as an enemy combatant, there is an assumption that he is guilty. But 'innocent until proven' guilty is one of the most holy tenets of American law. Do people want to throw away centuries of American justice? |
|
|
|
Post by Mari on Apr 23, 2013 12:16:06 GMT
I doubt many people think about implications and such. Most just are so shocked they want to see him dead which is only possible under federal law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Apr 23, 2013 20:05:23 GMT
...and there was me thinking that punishment came after a guilty verdict! |
|
|
|
Post by Shake on Apr 24, 2013 3:54:34 GMT
I actually saw a poll tonight, running fairly even actually, asking whether he should be tried as a regular criminal in civil court, or as an enemy combatant in military court. It surprised me that the polling was so close (actually slightly ahead, IIRC, in favor of the latter option). I suspect the motivation is anger rather than justice. However, if Dzhokhar is tried as an enemy combatant, there is an assumption that he is guilty. But 'innocent until proven' guilty is one of the most holy tenets of American law. Do people want to throw away centuries of American justice? I sure don't, and I know there are many who think as I do. However, I think there are also far too many who were scared by 9/11 and are OK with giving up justice and liberty. This point was proven by the rapid passing of the so-called Patriot Act, and the fact that much of it lingered on (still does, even? I'm not sure, actually) for so long. I read something else today saying that the amount of people now employed at least in part in an attempt to deter terrorism, be it in the Dept of Homeland Security, the TSA, etc., or whatever, would fill 3 Pentagon buildings and numbers over 3/4 of million people. The article seemed to bemoan the fact that all those people couldn't stop the events at Boston. FWIW, I'm not sure I'd still want to live here if things were so secure that something like that could never happen. That would involve ridiculous amounts of invasive government snooping and red tape, and frankly, our economy wouldn't be able to support it. As it is, I refer to the TSA as the 'Totally Superfluous Agency' as it has been shown how easy it is to defeat their airport security measures. For the amount the government has spent on it, we're not really that much more secure, and that is tragic. |
|
deej
Hello
Posts: 32
|
Post by deej on Apr 24, 2013 13:19:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Apr 24, 2013 13:45:06 GMT
And more prominence than the millions who die of disentry in China.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Apr 24, 2013 18:16:33 GMT
I think the main part of the issue there is that the Chinese people dying of dysentery are not voters, consumers, etc. to them!  |
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 24, 2013 18:22:44 GMT
I would never ever understand the gun culture in the States.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Apr 24, 2013 18:54:32 GMT
Exactly. It's quite depressing as far as I do understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Apr 25, 2013 6:38:03 GMT
At this rate, we'll soon be seeing US refugees trying to flee their country. It's baffling. Well this is partly what happens when you don't educate the masses and then let them vote anyway. It becomes very easy to push their buttons and manipulate them the way you want to.
|
|
