Amazon.com Widgets

Should governments have the power to jail suspects without trial?

  • Depends...Civil or Criminal matter that took place on U.S. soil? Or Prisoner of War that could produce useful intel?

    Habeas Corpus for U.S. Citizens. Other than that, if during War and the person is perceived as a combatant...Yes! Citizens on the U.S. should be granted rights in accordance with the Constitution and statutory laws. If you're not a citizen, you have no rights; we should however permit communication with their home nation though for diplomacy!

  • Suspected criminals are at risk of going on the run.

    I feel that criminals suspected of committing crimes should be jailed prior to their trial. They are likely to not show up for their trial, and in turn they could cause harm to others during this time of mania. I do feel, however, that this should depend on the severity of the crime and the suspect's past history of showing up to court.

    Posted by: CleanJoey
  • Yes, I agree governments should have the power to jail suspects without a trial because if they have a reason to be a suspect, they're usually guilty anyways.

    I think governments should have the power to jail suspects without a trial because if they are a suspect, they're obviously under some cloud of suspicion and usually turn out to be guilty. Trials can be a major waste of taxpayer money and usually is. Especially for cases when someone is so blatantly guilty. What do they need a trial for?

    Of course there would have to be limits so innocent people are not thrown in jail, but it should be allowed in proper measures are taken.

    Posted by: I33Iess
  • Governments should not have the power to jail suspects indefinitely without a trial, because this is a violation of a fundamental human right.

    Governments should not have the power to jail suspects indefinitely without a trial, because this is a violation of a fundamental human right. In the U.S., this right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Every person has a right to a trial, at which the possibility of their guilt or innocence is examined and a decision is reached by either a jury of their peers or a judge, as the law mandates. Otherwise, we would be living in a totalitarian society.

    Posted by: R0xHart
  • Our government should be able to jail suspects without a trial when they have good evidence to prove they have committed a crime.

    When someone is named a suspect, it does not necessarily mean they have committed a crime. But, if there is enough evidence to prove that the person has bad intentions or may be dangerous, the only thing to stop them from continuing that sort of behavior is to be incarcerated. Sometimes people are named suspects and they are not responsible for the crime, and unfortunately sometimes, they get blamed for things they have not done. But, if someone is a threat for whatever reason, the government should have the authority to take them off of our streets.

    Posted by: TatumH
  • In certain circumstances I think our government must be given the option of jailing suspects without a trial in war time situations and in circumstances where national security interests are involved.

    I think it is an option that must be carefully considered but there are circumstances where I believe it is necessary. In times of war when we are taking a lot of enemy combatants into custody it's hard to think of trying to give all those prisoners a trial. Holding enemy prisoners is a part of war. Plus there may be times when issues of national security override individual rights.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • The government should not put people in jail until they have enough information to declare them guilty or not guilty.

    The people that are charged with committing a crime have the right to a fair trial no matter what. Everyone deserves a fair trial no matter what the circumstances are. That is like assuming something before you had perfect evidence to prove that it happened and would be faulty if it was wrong.

    Posted by: waffletime
  • If the crime committed is so heinous and detrimental to society, government should have the right to jail someone without trial.

    Some crimes, particularly terrorism, are not victimless crimes. In fact, they are victim rich crimes, effecting possibly millions of people. If someone is known to have ties to terrorist groups, then they should not be released from prison, only to return to their native land and continue in terrorist activities.

    Posted by: R0m4nticCar
  • Some crimes are so horrible that i believe the death penalty is justified.

    When it appears that rehabilitation is not an option for a violent offender, the death penalty is justified. One reason for this is the cost to the taxpayers to support a person in prison who will make no contribution to society for the rest of his or her life. When a person crosses the line and takes away the civil rights of another through murder or sexual molestation of a child, along with other horrendous crimes, they do not deserve to live once they have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Governments should have the right to jail prisoners without trial if they are considered a risk to the greater community.

    This issue should be decided on a case by case basis dependent on the crime and the risk the individual poses to the community. A serial killer, pedophile or major drug dealer are examples of those who may present a risk to the public in addition to being a flight risk. Individuals who may flee the country should also be considered good candidates for imprisonment prior to trial.

    Posted by: R3n5God2iIIa
  • It's not American, Make your own country if that's what you want.

    All that is needed to deprive someone of their freedoms and rights is an educated guess (probable Cause) of their possible guilt. Also, if a person is found guilty after a trial, the sentence for their crimes have such a wide array of severity that often times being jailed for any amount of time is more harsh than what a court would have decided. There are plenty of alternatives that are less costly to the city and county, like monitoring devices and pre-trial intensive supervision depending on the severity of the crime. Also an assessment done by a professional that would determine a persons level of risk, may or may not be beneficial. I know that would open a different can of worms, but still it would be another step before Locking people up and asking questions later. The fact that people are allowed to have a bond, and even be given a fair and reasonable bond, means that the Government doesn't care about jailing suspects, they only care about getting money out of them. It's also true that any jail time before a trial is considered "Time Served" on the sentence. They know we are supposed to have our freedom before being found guilty (Innocent until). I haven't even mentioned the amount of damage pre-trial confinement or custody has on a persons life. If a person is jailed more than a week, they can typically lose their job, their home, their friends and family may shun them, the charges are visible on a background check so in many cases it's difficult or near impossible to get another job or home, and even if you're found not guilty in the end, the damage on a persons life, of pre-trial actions by the prosecution and courts is so great that it should never be allowed in the first place. Criminal charges should not be made accessible by anyone until after a conviction and jail should not be forced onto anyone until after sentencing.

  • Corruption in Government

    No: I wouldn't give the government that right, they have proven they are unreliable, whos running the United States, not the people, the politicians..Money is the root of it all, ....It use to be where the people had the say so now anymore your vote really is not worth a dime, your just hanging yourself when you go and vote.

  • No they shan't

    Because the suspect may be innocent! Remember innocent until proven guilty? Well how would you like to be locked up for years on end when you are not the one who committed the crime? Let alone that, if they jail the wrong person the real criminal is still running free able to commit more....

  • Should governments have the power to jail suspects without trail? Answer no.

    Would corrupt governments allow the people the same power to jail corrupt governments without trail? Why do you think governments would need such power? Answer: It silences the innocents, the ones who know. Our world we live would be government free. Only shows governments are not there for the people, government disrespect towards the people, fails to hear the peoples voice, disrespects rights, plus degrades and disrespects humanity as a whole in society.

    Such power is corrupt and corruption breeds corruption. Any one claiming the right to such power has many hidden skeletons of their own, then they pass a law so it can never be known. For if truth sprang forth, eyes would open, blind would see and corruption would finally end with humanity free.

  • There is no need to keep someone that is obviously innocent in jail.

    My ex had charges of armed robbery. He says that it was mistaken identity because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. They don't have any evidence to prove that he was the one that did it. No gun and no witnesses. No one that knows him believes that he did it and I don't either. They dropped most of his charges but because they don't want to say they were wrong for accusing him they are trying to charge him with something and they are keeping him in jail. This is very wrong to me and unethical.

  • Anonymous

    Protesting is now considered "Low level Terrorism," violating our freedom of speech amendments. The fall is happening. We will soon no longer be able to voice any opinion at all. Very soon we will have to leave this country that was once so great and beautiful. Every day my concern grows this will just get worse.

  • Constitutional rights

    In the Bill of Rights it guarantees us the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of our peers. To take away this right will go against the American principles and the whole idea of the Constitutional right. In addition, I do realize that when the Constitution was written they did no foresee terrorist threats, but that still does not change the fact that regardless of a crime the accursed has rights.

  • Absolutely not

    That would violate several Amendments in the Bill of rights. No warrantless search and seizures, no arresting without probable cause. Anything violating these rights is abhorrent.

  • Governments should not have the power to jail suspects without a trial, because it violates basic civil rights.

    People are often falsely accused of crimes. Allowing people to be jailed without trial would result in the incarceration of a lot of innocent people. The power could be severely abused and governments could end up imprisoning their citizens, that they know are innocent, as a way to suppress free speech or in retaliation for a viewpoint that the government does not support.

    Posted by: NineNathanial43
  • No government should be able to jail suspects without trial, because the right to trial is a hallmark of civilized societies.

    No government should be allowed to jail suspects without trial. It is a basic human right to be allowed to defend oneself in a court of law, when one is accused of a crime. For a government to allow its citizens to be held without trial is a gross violation of that right.

    Posted by: BrownDustin82

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.