←back to thread

US accidentally sent Maryland father to Salvadorian prison, can't get him back

(www.independent.co.uk)
224 points croes | 5 comments | 01 Apr 25 09:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.821s | source
Show context
mcv ◴[01 Apr 25 09:49 UTC] No.43544826[source]▶
This is why due process is essential for everybody. The moment you deny it to one group, you can deny it to anyone by claiming they're in that one group.
replies(3): >>43546062 #>>43548445 #>>43549974 #
jrs235 ◴[01 Apr 25 12:39 UTC] No.43546062[source]▶
I do believe the whole concept of beyond A reasonable doubt was based upon the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer. What is happening is a slap in the face of our foundational principles and justice system.
replies(1): >>43547380 #
timeon ◴[01 Apr 25 14:44 UTC] No.43547380[source]▶
> I do believe the whole concept of beyond A reasonable doubt was based upon the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to suffer.

Societies that do believe in this do not have capital punishment. It seems to me from the outside that US have different priorities. Like with school-shootings - apparently that is worth it there.

replies(2): >>43550994 #>>43555919 #
xracy ◴[01 Apr 25 20:29 UTC] No.43550994[source]▶
At the very least this has been a hotly contested conversation for a while in the US. I do still believe it's a founding principle of the US' legal system.
replies(2): >>43551507 #>>43555923 #
mcv ◴[01 Apr 25 21:25 UTC] No.43551507[source]▶
It is, but as with many founding principles of the US, they don't always live up to them.

I mean, Thomas Jefferson said it was self-evident that every man was created equal and had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet he kept people as property in slavery. That just about sums up American theory vs practice. Same with the legal system: plenty of innocent people have been executed despite it being pretty clear they were innocent, simply because the legal system didn't allow the case to be reopened to handle the new evidence.

replies(1): >>43555938 #
1. milesrout ◴[02 Apr 25 12:35 UTC] No.43555938[source]▶
To be fair to Jefferson, he supported the eventual emancipation of slaves and the end of slavery, was strongly opposed to the international slave trade (he banned it) and freed some slaves. His stated reason for not doing more sooner was that he thought it would bring about immense unrest. And of course it did, in the end. The bloodiest war in American history.
replies(2): >>43556783 #>>43558653 #
2. mcv ◴[02 Apr 25 14:00 UTC] No.43556783[source]▶
Did he free his slaves? I thought he didn't. Washington did free some of his slaves when he died. Still not all, though. Imagine if these two political powerhouses had freed all the slaves, as their words suggested they should. US history would have looked very differently.

No, I don't think supporting "eventual" emancipation is good enough if you don't do anything to actually bring it about.

replies(1): >>43561891 #
3. bigyabai ◴[02 Apr 25 16:48 UTC] No.43558653[source]▶
> His stated reason for not doing more sooner was that he thought it would bring about immense unrest.

What a ridiculous reason in hindsight, huh? "Yes, the inevitable reconciliation of our gross injustices against fellow man will be fixed one day. But not now, because I like the comfort of the status quo and would prefer white people not die for a principled cause."

To say nothing of his own slaves, this fickleness of leadership is not what American politics should aspire to.

4. milesrout ◴[02 Apr 25 21:33 UTC] No.43561891[source]▶
The most brutal part of slavery was the international slave trade which he banned. I don't think he did nothing.

You have to understand a man's actions in the context of his time.

replies(1): >>43562147 #
5. krapp ◴[02 Apr 25 21:58 UTC] No.43562147{3}[source]▶
Jefferson was called a hypocrite and a coward in his time, though.