I listen to a lot of true crime podcasts, so there is inevitably talk about victims' rights (which is a whole Problematic Thing, but that's another thread) and how "criminals have all the rights." Well, good, because that's exactly how it needs to be. 1/
Criminals and the accused need the MOST protection of their rights. People seem to think that this is because we all want to protect the pwecious widdle criminals (or something), but this is not to protect criminals but to PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON THE STATE'S POWER. 2/
The accused and the convicted need rights because the state has the most power over their lives and freedoms. When you're subject to incarceration and detention, you better have strong safeguards against state overreach. 3/
Yes, citizens have the right not to be the victim of a crime. But once that crime has occurred, the natural desire for justice and punishment makes it all the more dangerous a situation, ripe for the misuse of state powers. 4/
The other aspect of this is that hey, guess who defines what constitutes a crime? THE STATE. That same entity who has the power to punish, imprison, and in some cases, execute. So you better make sure that state's power over the accused isn't absolute. 5/
A state (and by state I refer to any governmental entity, so the US could be "the state" in this argument) with unrestrained punishment powers has in its hands a weapon (and the incentive) to criminalize and punish its political/ideological opponents. This happens every day. 6/
When an individual is potentially subject to the state's punishment, that individual better have the strongest, most robust protections. Not because they're sweet innocent angels, but because the state definitely is not. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
