Respectfully, this concedes too much. Criminality under the Constitution isn’t a fact to be discovered. “Criminal” is a label that is applied by the state only after a presumptively innocent person is convicted of a crime, following due process. Without due process, a person *cannot be* a criminal. - ThreadSky

evanbernick.bsky.social • 2 days ago

Respectfully, this concedes too much. Criminality under the Constitution isn’t a fact to be discovered. “Criminal” is a label that is applied by the state only after a presumptively innocent person is convicted of a crime, following due process. Without due process, a person *cannot be* a criminal.

Reposted from Asha Rangappa

Criminals deserve due process because due process is literally how we determine whether someone is, *in fact*, a criminal

Comments

metaphysicalist.bsky.social•2 days ago

Criminal without trial and conviction is a label used by people as a presumption of guilt, yet in our system there is a presumption of innocence, so it shouldn't be used. But politicians and the some of the press use it all the time, making people think it is appropriate.

esmewrites.bsky.social•2 days ago

is it more apt to state:

Everyone deserves due process because that is how we determine whether someone is a criminal.

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I would just say “whether someone has committed a crime”

kernelkorn420.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think their point was that even if someone is known to be guilty they still need due process because a belief (even personally witnessing an event) isn't sufficient to allow the state to exercise force against an individual by depriving them if liberty

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I understand their point. But I think the language is important anyway.

kernelkorn420.bsky.social•2 days ago

Totally fair

rifka.bsky.social•2 days ago

Appreciate you a lot on here

gdivinetz.bsky.social•2 days ago

“alleged” is also useful

joeyclose.bsky.social•2 days ago

The reason people say someone has 'gotten away with murder' (at least in the UK) is probably because it's a kind of oxymoron.

orinkerr.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think the common convention is to say someone is a criminal if they committed a crime, and that they are a convicted criminal if they are convicted.

jackq.bsky.social•2 days ago

Yeah he said he intentionally opposes the common usage, but thanks though

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I am consciously breaking with the common convention.

orinkerr.bsky.social•2 days ago

Got it, thanks.

katwitdown.bsky.social•2 days ago

Words are important

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I’ve been thinking a lot about that definition and this distinction, because of course every one of us has committed some crime for which we have never been arrested and/or convicted, so it feels like the common definition is flawed.

chrisboom504.bsky.social•2 days ago

But was that true when the meaning of the word first became established? That's a genuine question, but my hunch is it wasn't. And assuming the answer is no, that seems to me to grounds for criticizing the state of criminal law, not the common definition.

malnormalulo.bsky.social•2 days ago

The subtext generally seems to be "has committed a crime (that causes me, personally, to regard them as a different class of person)"

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

Right. I’m a criminal.

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

The difference between me and someone who has been convicted of a crime and thus can be treated like a criminal is due process.

joeinaustralia.bsky.social•2 days ago

I don't think we can or should distinguish between tortfeasors and felons in normal speech. People used to have a legal duty to shout "stop, thief!" if they saw someone making off with another person's goods; they couldn't hide behind the fact that the alleged perpetrator hadn't yet been convicted.

becauseigiveadamn.bsky.social•2 days ago

Fair point.

themistocleswall.bsky.social•2 days ago

well @asharangappa.bsky.social an fbi agent

Osama Bin Laden really did a number on the US

laid the groundwork for the gulag

lindbladmusic.bsky.social•2 days ago

That’s why I’ve created the “Due Process Wake Up Call” playlist on Spotify to bring musical awareness to this important issue. Please Listen, Follow, Share to grow awareness.
Thank you.😎🎶

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3Qx51rxElXBB3iSg2Qg5mU?si=o_t0M1k7TROONkc3lKOZmg&pi=ArRlw-vqSHWt1

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I know we often talk about “prosecuting criminals” “chasing criminals” etc. And I think that bakes in a lot of dubious normative and descriptive assumptions. So I’m saying so.

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I’ve committed a number of crimes. I’ve never been arrested let alone convicted of any of them. Am I a criminal? Maybe? Seems weird to think of me that way, in part because it would be unconstitutional to treat me that way. Because I’ve never been convicted. Which would require due process.

wndlb.bsky.social•2 days ago

And 8 USC 1325, Improper Entry by Alien is a PETTY federal MISDEMEANOR.
Too many moving violations (NOT DUI) can land you in (state or county) jail LONGER!

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

“Criminal,” “felon”—these are statuses created by the state, imposed by the state. Constitutionally, they can only be imposed after certain things happen. And I think that’s how we should talk about them, even if we often do not.

genjoconan.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sure is interesting to compare the framing around people accused of violating *most* laws with how the government's actions are reported

"The Trump administration wants to disappear AOC to a black site. Some legal scholars think that's a problem"

adamsith.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'm sure Maureen Dowd would find something witty to say...

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

Anyway, I complain about language a lot because I think it matters. Sometimes I consciously reject common usage. That’s what I’m doing here.

karloffsghost.bsky.social•2 days ago

i hear and appreciate this, but i worry it might concede too much the other direction. if someone is falsely convicted, then shouldn't we be able to say that they are not, in fact, a criminal? if the only defining factor is a state label, then it seems we can't make the distinction.

evanbernick.bsky.social•2 days ago

I think the reason that we want to say that is because of a baked in cultural assumption that a criminal is just someone who has committed a crime. I think that is a mistaken assumption. Committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient for being treated by the state as a criminal.

whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social•2 days ago

The Richard Nixon school of law and language (jk, but can’t resist the joke)

universalcurrent.bsky.social•2 days ago

I agree with this distinction, but deportation can in some circumstances happen without a criminal conviction. What cannot happen is deportation without due process.

tkinnama.bsky.social•2 days ago

Interesting.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply