Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

daviddfriedman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#51

Post by Geisterde »

lelanthran wrote: post #23
southerntofu wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? It's hard to imagine until you've gone through this. But yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". Being manipulated by the cops into a fake testimony is torture. Having the cops fake evidence and their testimonies to harass you is torture. Remaining days in a room…

> Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? Yes. > ut yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". If you classify everything you don't like as " some form of torture", then sure you have a point. But we don't do that. We don't know for sure that someone is innocent. All we can do is go through the process tha…

Define torture if you are so inclined. Regardless, the plea bargain system has been repeatedly abused to compel false testimoney from people otherwise helpless to defend themselves from a lengthy and costly legal proceeding that will leave them ruined. Its a violation of their human rights, its prohibited by the constitution, and empirically has ruined millions of people. Crimes that do not involve violence against another person or person or their property (which are logically synonymous) should not be crimes, that would lower the judicial load.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#53

Post by tgv »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #33
k__ wrote: post #31

"In the history of Western culture no legal system has ever made a more valiant effort to perfect its safeguards and thereby to exclude completely the possibility of mistaken conviction" Reminds me of a law that was repealed recently in Germany. They wanted to "reopen" cases where people were already found not guilty, when new technology would find new evidence. In one case, a murderer was found not guilty, and later…

Although my first reaction is to support the idea of being able to retry cases when new evidence emerges, I can see the pitfalls if this were applied in a real-world justice system. There would have to be some pretty big barriers to overcome to prevent abuse (on the usual suspects, the poor and/or people the police/politicians just don't like) and then more rules to make sure those barriers themselves aren't used as…

Isn't it common to be able to re-open court cases? That (technically, legally) sidesteps ne bis in idem (aka double jeopardy), but it requires that substantial new evidence is brought. So basically it adds that barrier, and the barrier becomes higher for every new attempt.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#54

Post by tgv »

southerntofu wrote: post #19
infotainment wrote: post #8

This seems like a really shallow take masquerading as a deep one. The core assertion that offering a lesser punishment in exchange for cooperation is a form of “torture” strikes me as an extreme exaggeration.

Have you ever faced custody and pre-trial detention? It's hard to imagine until you've gone through this. But yes, offering a definitely innocent person that was abused by the System the choice between two forms of punishment is some form of "torture". Being manipulated by the cops into a fake testimony is torture. Having the cops fake evidence and their testimonies to harass you is torture. Remaining days in a room…

Pre-trail detention isn't torture. If it were, it would be forbidden in many jurisdictions. Hard isolation is different; at the very least, it is a step in the direction of torture.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#55

Post by coldtea »

Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

>what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government?

What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US?

How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as an "oppressive government" fared?

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#56

Post by Geisterde »

coldtea wrote: post #55
Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…

Reasonably well, all things considered. There are something like 20+ million ar-15s in america, were american gun owners considered an army it would be the largest ever conceived of with no close second; perhaps here you will find the reason you enjoy more liberties than someone living in china or north korea.

And I never said it was fair, I said it was a balance; the balance is very clearly biased towards the government, but they do not enjoy such power for complete and violent subjugation. They rely instead on propaganda, I would argue that is the foundation of their power in fact; the creation myth of our government, that the public interest is represented, keep a critical mass unwittingly subsurvient.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#57

Post by 2devnull »

coldtea wrote: post #55
Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

> what is the actual game theory in the balance of power between a people and their government when the people are stripped of their ability to defend themselves from an oppressive government? What is the actual reality that says now there's a "balance of power" between the people and their government in the US? How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as…

> How did people or groups challenging it with their guns (or even peacefully) because they thought of it as an "oppressive government" fared?

Well there was an American revolution that gave us our nation in the first place. I’d say it fared mightily well.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#58

Post by jfengel »

Geisterde wrote: post #48

[flagged]

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate.

It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change.

So at this point it's more of an indicator that politics has utterly broken down. We can't meaningfully discuss a limit case such as you bring up, because the answer is predetermined. Between a Supreme Court composed two-thirds of candidates vetted to allow no gun restrictions of any kind ever, and a set of checks and balances in the Congress that requires a super majority for any legislation, the argument is permanently decided in favor of "doing nothing". Not just on this issue but on every issue.

Compared to that worrying about Zombie George III reimposing the Stamp Acts doesn't seem much like worrying about.

Post reply on HN