Hacker News Reader

Just curious, where would you say the line is between “police state” and “a state with police”

Wikipedia says that in a police state, the government exerts an extreme amount of control over society and individuals. That leaves "extreme" undefined, though, so it's subjective. (Also, you know, Wikipedia.)

I'm not the one you asked, but: Me, personally, I'd draw the line at the independence of the courts. If the courts are independent, if they can rule against the police for failure to prove their case or for procedural violations or whatever, then it's not a police state. If the police win the borderline cases (or worse, the clearly bogus cases) just because they're the police, then it's a police state.

Do you think the courts are independent?

Followup question:

Do you think public defenders are given adequate funding to ensure they can give proper defense to their clients?

Yes, I think courts are independent. No, I do not think that public defenders are adequate.

What would you change to make public defense more adequate?

I'm not an expert, but I think it would probably start with funding. I think they're massively overworked, and as a result they do an inadequate job for each defendant.

Are you serious with this question?

No I just thought the parent poster was also unserious

Reply on news.ycombinator.com