On the one hand, you want to punish him, so you limit his freedoms. On the other hand, if you get close to the line (even without crossing it) that allows him to make cases and get into the court...
On the one hand, you want to punish him, so you limit his freedoms. On the other hand, if you get close to the line (even without crossing it) that allows him to make cases and get into the court system, which generates media interest (because they can't help themselves) and his story keeps pulsing through the world.
Better to soften up, make it so blindingly obvious that he is being treated legally that any appeal gets thrown out without even being heard, and stifle his publicity before he gets the chance to spew it.
Or just legislate a silent/no media court for those sorts of appeals.
I'd be worried if accusations of mistreatment against prisoners or accusations of not affording them their legal rights became something that was easy to hide from the public. (Depending on what's...
Or just legislate a silent/no media court for those sorts of appeals.
I'd be worried if accusations of mistreatment against prisoners or accusations of not affording them their legal rights became something that was easy to hide from the public. (Depending on what's meant by "silent/no media" courts and how that compares to the usual standard.) We don't want to facilitate bad faith hijackings of the legal system in service of spreading racist/terroristic/etc. ideologies but we also don't want to decide that legal rights can be ignored if we dislike someone enough.
Among Corrections staff concerns, said the source, is if he is found guilty and sentenced to a lengthy prison term and his security classification drops on account of good behaviour: "There is nothing we can do about it, that's our system."
I think this is something to be proud of. The rule of law and the equal and fair application of that law is paramount in having a just society that protects its members and treats them well. Exceptions to that are the thin wedge that can allow fascist and authoritarian thought to corrupt our systems of government.
(NB: A lot of this is more in general and going off the topic of the OP comment than a direct argument against it; when it comes down to it I doubt many people on Tildes are in favour of secret courts for prisoners and I'm not accusing anyone of advancing that argument.)
On the one hand, you want to punish him, so you limit his freedoms. On the other hand, if you get close to the line (even without crossing it) that allows him to make cases and get into the court system, which generates media interest (because they can't help themselves) and his story keeps pulsing through the world.
Better to soften up, make it so blindingly obvious that he is being treated legally that any appeal gets thrown out without even being heard, and stifle his publicity before he gets the chance to spew it.
Or just legislate a silent/no media court for those sorts of appeals.
I'd be worried if accusations of mistreatment against prisoners or accusations of not affording them their legal rights became something that was easy to hide from the public. (Depending on what's meant by "silent/no media" courts and how that compares to the usual standard.) We don't want to facilitate bad faith hijackings of the legal system in service of spreading racist/terroristic/etc. ideologies but we also don't want to decide that legal rights can be ignored if we dislike someone enough.
I think this is something to be proud of. The rule of law and the equal and fair application of that law is paramount in having a just society that protects its members and treats them well. Exceptions to that are the thin wedge that can allow fascist and authoritarian thought to corrupt our systems of government.
(NB: A lot of this is more in general and going off the topic of the OP comment than a direct argument against it; when it comes down to it I doubt many people on Tildes are in favour of secret courts for prisoners and I'm not accusing anyone of advancing that argument.)