logoalt Hacker News

Analemma_today at 3:51 AM6 repliesview on HN

How else could it possibly work? The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action. Within the guardrails established by the system (e.g. no self-incriminating testimony, if you’re in the US), I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.


Replies

bravoetchtoday at 4:00 AM

You ask how else could it possibly work. How about charge him with a crime first, then detain him if he's convicted. The idea that you can imprison someone forever without a charge is insane.

show 2 replies
cortesofttoday at 4:01 AM

Doesn't this give the government the unchecked ability to detain whoever they want indefinitely, then?

They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?

show 2 replies
giancarlostorotoday at 4:00 AM

> since you can get out any time you want.

If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?

awesome_dudetoday at 3:57 AM

> I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.

It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.

show 1 reply
FpUsertoday at 4:20 AM

>"How else could it possibly work?"

Here is the idea - six month in jail for contempt.

> The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action"

It does not. The person gets punished and this should be the end of it. Instead they have Machiavellian twist bypassing all standard checks and bounds.

Daddy they've hurt my ego.

show 1 reply
wesammikhailtoday at 4:13 AM

The is the most totalitarian bullshit I've ever heard on HN. The fact that you're okay with another human, just because they have a robe, to compel you to do as they ask OR rot away without a conviction is utter madness.

Imagine if this was the 1500s and the man in the robe was a priest. Would you be okay with that? and if your answer is some form of distinction without a difference argument, I'd urge you to not even reply.