"The applicant, who had been detained in prison prior to trial, alleged that his prison guards frequently raided his cell, confiscating notes he had prepared for consultation with defense counsel. Subsequently, the appellant was denied all access to pen and paper and thus was unable to prepare a defense. The court held that the claim was without merit as there were many other prisoners awaiting trial under similar circumstances yet none had complained that their ability to prepare a defense was hampered."Seriously? That was the argument? We're doing this to lots of other people, too, and none of them have complained about it yet, so screw you? Does this even need rebutting? If your ability to enjoy a right is dependent on other people's also complaining when that right is violated, it's not really your right. I'm curious how many others of those defendants would've needed to complain simultaneously before that court became willing to entertain their pleas.
God, this just sickens me. Like, uhhhhh, hello, this guy is standing in front of you, complaining, now? Care to notice?
Side note: this is similar to the Scalia/tradition complex of issues. The argument here is sort of that this kind of treatment was traditional and had never been previously challenged, but of course in both cases the question is whether the traditional, unchallenged practice in question is actually valid, regardless of whether anyone wanted to challenge it previously.
No comments:
Post a Comment