On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 23:35:03 -0400, shawn
<
nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
I know they are pretending there's no way to get the man back but if
that's what they want to pretend then they shouldn't be allowed to
send another person to that prison. They want to pretend they are
still in US custody (hence why we are paying them to retain the
prisoners) but then pretending they have no control over what happens
to them.
Isn't that functionally equivalent to banning deportations?
Fact is we KNOW miscarriages of justice sometimes happen - it's one of
the reasons for the existence of appeal courts.
I would bet that ANY prison of any size in America has had SOMEBODY
wrongfully sent there throughout its history. Even if the wrongful
conviction rate is as high as 1/4 of 1%.
(And we heard all sorts of things about major cases over dinner when I
was growing up as my grandfather was jury foreman on what was one of
the most notorious Canadian murder cases in the 1960s - he said little
about the evidence itself but lots about procedure for sequestered
jury cases - for instance my grandfather owned a fish cannery which is
a very seasonal industry where my father who was plant manager needed
to talk to him regularly during what was both the time of the trial
and the peak canning period of the year - a 12 hour workday was short
at that time of year! They had to meet in a prisoner room with a court
sheriff in attendance. They were not allowed to speak by phone to each
other during the trial)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)