[munchler]

Your example proves my point. If there are no judges, the government has to let you go free. They don’t force anyone to become a judge.

A better example might be that your right to a jury trial conflicts with my right to freedom of movement, but the government explicitly resolves that contradiction by making it a crime to avoid jury duty.

[astrange]

They don't have to let you go free if there aren't enough judges though. You can end up in jail or otherwise restricted for quite a long time.

[immibis]

The government taking away your right to freedom of movement resolves a conflict with freedom of movement?

[chongli]

Your example proves my point. If there are no judges, the government has to let you go free. They don’t force anyone to become a judge.

What about the victims' right to justice and to be secure against violations of their rights (bodily integrity and health, property, freedom of movement and flourishing)? If there are no judges and all the criminals are left to roam the streets, they are free to continue victimizing anyone they choose. Seems to me that these rights have a lot of mutually incompatible features. You can't provide for one person's rights without compelling action from another.

[maldusiecle]

> Your example proves my point. If there are no judges, the government has to let you go free.

That happens, you believe?

[rssoconnor]

> But the case was thrown out in August 2023 — not for a lack of evidence, but because the Crown took too long to bring it to trial under a set of strict timelines that have reshaped the way criminal cases are handled since a landmark 2016 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/canada-jorda...

[genewitch]

That's from the magna carta. 1215 CE or thereabouts.