[danaris]

Note: This is a semantic argument. YMMV.

That sounds like you're talking about our practice of justice. It is, unquestionably, pretty fucked.

I would say that "our principles of justice," on the other hand, a) clearly include "innocent until proven guilty", which would preclude the above question from an employer, and b) pretty well condemn a lot of stuff in our practice of justice, as well, with prison labor high on the list.

[falcolas]

Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea. I'll agree with that. But it's not really implemented anywhere. You're stuck in prison or effectively on parole until you're found not guilty (or the case is dropped), with no reparation. You can also be put in jail indefinitely by a judge with no process of appeal.

Which I guess you could call a problem with the practice, but that begs the question: if it's never practiced, is it really a principle? Or is it just propaganda?

Also, prison labor is built into our constitution, making it more than just a practice.

[neilv]

> if it's never practiced, is it really a principle? Or is it just propaganda?

Whether it's principle or propaganda, it was the deal. So, if it's not a principle, make it one. Including reminding employers who forgot civics class.

[danaris]

Principles are, at least to some extent, inherently aspirational.

You put them in your founding documents and spread them in your rhetoric because you believe that, even if people are not following them now, it is important to make sure the people in the future know "This was our goal. This is what we think is a good ideal to shoot for." That way, they can see it, compare it to the practice, and say, "Y'know, maybe we should do better."

Here we are in the future, and it's not right. We can see the principle, and compare it to the practice. Will we shrug, and say, "Eh, everyone knows that sort of thing is just blue-sky idealist thinking. No one really thinks it can work in the real world."?

Or will we say, "Y'know, maybe we should do better."?