Comment by johnnyfaehell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnyfaehell | Hacker News Reader

> According to his lawyers, Mr Assange was handcuffed 11 times; stripped naked twice and searched; his case files confiscated after the first day of the hearing; and had his request to sit with his lawyers during the trial, rather than in a dock surrounded by bulletproof glass, denied.

Stripped naked and search is standard custody practice. Criminals hide things and are known to smuggle things in and out of court to prison. And remember, he is techincally a criminal. He broke criminal law when he skipped bail. He is being held in custody, it seems fair for standard policies to apply to him. Why would he be any different?

It is standard for someone to sit in the dock, why would he deserve special treatment. He is able to confer with his lawyers when he needs to from the dock as many other people have done so in the past and will do so in the future.

The only issue I have is them taking his case files, which seems petty. But I suspect there would have been operational reasons, but why those reasons couldn't have been worked around seems odd and again petty.

While I think he doesn't deserve to be sent to the US and should not be. The fact, he is a criminal and is in custody because he can't be trusted does mean he should be treated as such a manner.

Seems like nobody should really be treated that way though, so the fact he's being treated in accordance with others to me is more of an indictment of the system than his specific treatment. People seem to have lost sight of the fact that (a) people are innocent until proven guilty in general and (b) criminals are people too, and all people deserve humane treatment. After all, if you can't treat criminals humanely who are you to condemn them for treating others inhumanely? By all means, remove from society, reform, re-educate, etc, but no reason to treat criminals as anything other than your siblings, parents, etc who did something wrong and need some course correction.

> Seems like nobody should really be treated that way though, so the fact he's being treated in accordance with others to me is more of an indictment of the system than his specific treatment.

Why shouldn't people be stripped searched on the way in and out of prison? How are the prisons meant to ensure the safety of the prisoners? Remember prisoners can and do smuggle weapons and deadly drugs into prisons. One of the best ways of keeping prisons safe is to search prisoners properly upon entry to the prison.

Why shouldn't people who have been proven not trustworthy be held in a dock? Remember, he skipped bail.

Why shouldn't someone who seems to be at danger be protected with bulletproof glass?

> people are innocent until proven guilty in general

He has already been proven guilty of a crime. He is a criminal.

> criminals are people too, and all people deserve humane treatment. After all, if you can't treat criminals humanely who are you to condemn them for treating others inhumanely? By all means, remove from society, reform, re-educate, etc, but no reason to treat criminals as anything other than your siblings, parents, etc who did something wrong and need some course correction.

I personally have been in the UK prison system and have experienced the strip searches and the court handling. Honestly, I never heard a prisoner once complain about strip searches, we understood why they were there. The guards weren't insenstive or treated us inhumanely. We were just told to take our clothes off while they inspected our clothes. And sitting in a dock is not inhumane.

> Why shouldn't people who have been proven not trustworthy be held in a dock? Remember, he skipped bail. Why shouldn't someone who seems to be at danger be protected with bulletproof glass?

Sorry, do you expect him to run out of court and not be stopped by the bailiffs? Do you expect him to cause danger that requires the use of bulletproof glass after already being searched for weapons inside and out?

> He has already been proven guilty of a crime. He is a criminal.

Not this crime? Either way it applies to people who both have and have not been convicted yes?

> Honestly, I never heard a prisoner once complain about strip searches, we understood why they were there.

Oh, well. In that case. I'm sure if they did complain their complains would be given the utmost priority.

> Sorry, do you expect him to run out of court and not be stopped by the bailiffs? Do you expect him to cause danger that requires the use of bulletproof glass after already being searched for weapons inside and out?

Well, the baliffs wouldn't be in position to catch him since they're in the dock. Because that's where the prisoner is. And prisoners do bolt out of courts, they get ane extra sentence but it does happen.

> Do you expect him to cause danger that requires the use of bulletproof glass after already being searched for weapons inside and out?

I said AT danger, not BE A danger. So the bulletproof glass is there to protect HIM.

> Oh, well. In that case. I'm sure if they did complain their complains would be given the utmost priority.

You know people complain to each other, right? They bitch about this and that. Like they would complain about the tea being crap, etc. And complaints were treated fairly, that's why if you complained you got shit from the guards, your mail would take 2 days longer, your requests for a form would take longer, etc.

You seem to be completely disconnected from reality.

* This is a guy who skipped bail and avoided arrest for years. And you're againist him sitting in a dock.

* A guy who realistically, people want to kill and you're againist him being behind bulletproof glass.

* You want people to be dealt with humanely but againist basic things required to keep them safe. All the things you're againist, the only countries that don't have them are corrupt, dangerous places.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

> He is able to confer with his lawyers when he needs to from the dock

Is he? Also it was suggested he hadn't received relevant papers in prison, and now isn't allowed them in court either.

His ability to be personally informed are greatly reduced as a result of all of this, which seems beyond "petty", and rather a purposeful attempt to minimise his ability to be involved with the defence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com