Before reading 1984, I disagreed with this statement. And after reading, my opinion hasn't changed one bit. I feel that people who are a serious threat to the government-in their actual actions, not just in opinion and though-should be imprisoned or controlled in some fashion. But what point is there in holding them without charging them? If they are actually a real threat, then there is something they could be charged with, so we should do so, and if they are not actually a threat, then they won't be able to be charged based on any concrete evidence and should therefore be released. In the world of 1984, Oceania, and The Party, the Party holds people in prison without actually charging them because they have committed thoughtcrime. The Party does this so they can eliminate and change people who are a threat to them merely based on opinion without actually committing a crime they could be charged for, and they also do this to demonstrate their absolute power so people will be frightened by them and submissive to them. It is against the freedom of speech and a citizen's civil rights to prosecute someone just for having bad feelings toward the government, and to hold people in prison without charging them allows the government to do precisely that. To let the government have that kind of power, where what they say goes without any evidence or a fair trial, turns the government into an absolutist and fascist regime, if I am using the AP Euro terms we were "taught" by Mr. Docter correctly. This should not be allowed because it eliminates democracy and a citizen's individual rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree completely - if a person really is a threat to the country, there should be something obvious to charge them with. Prison is, by definition, a place to hold criminals who have been formally charged with an offense - there would be no need to hold a person there without charging them because, if they were really a danger to the country, they could be charged easily. This practice completely negates a person's right to a fair trial and just about every other right I can think of.
-Hannah
I also agree with what you are saying that there is no point in holding someone if you don't know what you're going to charge them with. After reading 1984, I saw that the way the government (Party) works is pretty much the opposite of ours. Granted to every person by the sixth amendment of the Bill of Rights is: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." In Oceania, citizens that were thought to have any bad ideas about the Party were immediately taken away without any rights or ways to defend themselves. If this was the way our society worked, everyone would be scared every moment of their lives that they were going to get taken away because of one wrong thing they did, so I don't think that holding people without charging them is a good way to run a society.
-Kate Collins
From the perspective of the people, holding potentially threatening people without charging them seems like a terrible violation of rights, and by our country's constitution, it is just that. But from the perspective of a head of government, it would be beneficial to have this power. As O'Brien tells Winston in the Ministry of Love, the primary goal of any government is power. The best way to keep your power and foster its growth is to eliminate any opposition before it can hurt you. This is what the Party is doing in 1984: it wants to keep its power, so it takes measures to eliminate its opposition before the heretics can hurt their position. They have no concern for democracy or the rights of the people: all they want is power.
Annika
Post a Comment