[…] generally speaking my beef is that the “defend human rights†side of the debate rarely acknowledges that sooner or later some poor bugger will get blown up by somebody who the security services were trailing, waiting for sufficient evidence. And the “lock ‘em up†side rarely acknowledges how often innocent people get hauled in and have their lives ruined, and, following your argument, the consequences of compromising the principles of a fair trial.
And what the “lock em up” side never acknowledges is that sooner or later some poor bugger will get blown up by somebody who would’ve been locked up if they hadn’t already locked up an innocent person for an earlier crime. The trade off isn’t imprison the innocent OR let the guilty go free, it’s imprison the innocent AND let the guilty go free, OR let the guilty go free.
The only logically consitent argument for allowing weak convictions is that you believe it’s more important to lock somebody up than it is to lock the right person up. If you’re going to go down that route, you might as well just lock people up at random.
]]>At the higher level I do think there is a cost benefit advantage to society as a whole to a rights based jurisprudence in that it strengthens the rule of law and each individual’s sense that they are a full and recognised part of society, leading to a more stable civilisation.
]]>Is it possible to reconcile the two ways of thinking? What would happen if you did a cost/benefit analysis of the idea of using a rights-based system that may overrule cost/benefit considerations? I mean is it coherent to argue that the benefits of using a system based around rights, which may sometimes overrule cost/benefit judgements, outweigh the costs? That could probably do with being more elegantly expressed.
I want to reconcile the two, because it seems to me that on some level rights-based systems must have benefits that outweigh the costs, otherwise I’m against them.
]]>If the point is that the increased risk is marginal, how is he not doing a cost-benefit analysis?
]]>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1781655,00.html
]]>I agree that it’s not a new worry, but you could argue that if there’s more at stake, then the different risk profile (ie. terrorism) could justify a different position. Not sure that I would argue that – I just mean to point out that we need not arrive at the same answer in all cases, for the sake of consistency of principle.
]]>I suppose whichever way you cut it you face the inevitablity of either:
1. locking away (or deporting and so forth) lots of innocent people
2. failing to lock away somebody who then goes on to do something horrible.
I think you’re right that the line has to be drawn at a point that still (to my mind) leaves a worrying risk of 2. That is albeit worrying to my mind in my (perhaps disproportionate) state of worry about terrorism.
I don’t mean to direct the following at you, but generally speaking my beef is that the “defend human rights” side of the debate rarely acknowledges that sooner or later some poor bugger will get blown up by somebody who the security services were trailing, waiting for sufficient evidence. And the “lock ’em up” side rarely acknowledges how often innocent people get hauled in and have their lives ruined, and, following your argument, the consequences of compromising the principles of a fair trial. These are, of course, sweeping generalisations backed up by no evidence.
]]>I would be happy to see (legal) wiretapping evidence used in court, yes. I don’t any longer see a good reason for not letting it go to the jury: though there may be arguments to be made about how reliable it is, they can be made in court, rather than used as grounds for exclusion.
Sorry for the delay in responding by the way, I’ve been out of the country and away from the internet and have a mountain of work.
]]>