Talk:Preventive detention

Cleanup

The first and second paragraphs seem to contradict each other. This could be confusing. Matthew Matic 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st para states that PD is a system under which a person can be arrested without being told the grounds of the arrest. In the 2nd para, it states the normal arresting procedure, whereas PD is an extraordinary arresting procedure.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this stub only related to india ? Preventive detention also exists in many other countries. For example, in France, one can be detained up to the half of the detention duration for the crime he/she is accused. The principe is the same as cited in the article (protecting witnesses, protecting public order, avoiding vanishing of evidences, avoiding communication with other people accused, etc...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.121.1.26 (talk • contribs)

I endorse your views, please fix it. --Andy123(talk) 10:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Interwiki

the interwiki to the dutch Wikipedia lead me to the article on Terbeschikkingstelling but this a completely different subject than the preventive detention as described here. The dutch article nl:Terbeschikkingstelling (strafrecht) is about Psychiatric imprisonment (Involuntary_commitment#Netherlands). and I believe the german article is also more about Psychiatric imprisonment than it is about preventive detention. LeeGer (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'Sicherungsverwahrung'? I believe that's the German word for it. Is it appropriate to have a redirect in the English branch of the Wikipedia? 71.196.246.113 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark

It is hardly a secret that Denmark is hit by a huge gang war or rather gang attacks. The Danish police has recently (within the last year) created special units:

Intensivering af bandeindsatsen – Oprettelse af Task Force, The Danish police (in DK)

And they have spent 50 millions DKK on the task (in DK)

It would ignorant to insert a "When" JohanGraham (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

I have deleted the content under United Kingdom, because it was grossly inaccurate. It referred to the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (see Wiki entry) which doesn't detain anyone and has nothing to do with preventive detention. Someone needs to add in material about control orders in terrorism cases and the ruling of the European Court on the legality (illegality) of such manoeuvres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FRGMelbourne (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Deleted the line referring to President Obama detaining Guantanamo Bay captives for obvious bias. If you're going to reference their indefinite detention, link to the Guantanamo Bay main article and all the controversies associated with it instead -- President Obama did not originate the use of Guantanamo Bay for this purpose and neither should he be exclusively associated with its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.67.32 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say what was biased here was deletion of the name of whoever signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) into law. Had this particular act been signed into law in say 2018, would Wikipedians have been as quick to delete the signer's name? Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"?

Particularly offensive about this deletion is that it removes all mention of Glenn Greenwald's complaints about the NDAA. As author of many criticisms of both left and right governments, e.g. No Place to Hide, Greenwald is an equal-opportunity defender of civil liberties who is both loved and hated by both left and right. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different definitions/types of preventive detention - pre-trial, post-sentenc, involuntary commitment

It seems that there is no universally agreed definition of "preventive detention". There are (at least) four types of detention that can in principle be considered "preventive" (in that they are intended to prevent a person from doing something): Pre-trial detention (remand), detention after serving a sentence, detention by security forces without a formal accusation (uncommon in democratic countries and generally considered a human rights violation), and involuntary commitment.

It seems the term is mainly used for "detention after serving a sentence", but e.g. in Peru the detention prior to trial is called "prisión preventiva", literally "preventive prison" (see Peruvian law: Ley de tratamiento procesal de la prisión preventiva y la presunción de inocencia).

I tried to edit the article to explain this confusion. Any other ideas on how to better explain this?

Also, the country-specific sections seem to sometimes describe pre-trial detention. If there is a consensus that this article is for post-sentence detention only, these sections should probably be moved to the remand article. Or not?

Deleted entry for Canada

Deleted the entry for Canada, because dangerous offender sentences in Canada do not meet either of the definitions used in this article: "the detention of a convicted criminal who has served their sentence, but is considered too dangerous to release", or "detention of a person without trial or conviction by a court". The dangerous offender sentence is imposed as the sentence for a particular offence, and can only be imposed by a court after trial and conviction, through due process of law. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

This article is mixing two totally unrelated concepts, one of which is covered in Pre-trial detention. I suggest we remove everything related to that topic, as it is quite confusing right now. Vpab15 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the motivations of pre-trial detention will be preventative because someone who has committed a crime is potentially likely to commit one again. Though clearly not all pre-trial detention is preventative; it may only exist to prevent a defendant from fleeing the country for example. If these were specific legal concepts distinguished from one another in court, your argument would hold (though we would probably still like a "see also" sentence for editorial reasons), but quickly looking at the article it seems like this is not the case and the article is also comparative (in the sense that it includes information for a number of countries); it feels unlikely that all countries have a clear distinction between pre-trial detention and preventative detention.

But that's all logic. If we find that most comparative legal texts cleanly distinguish the concept... then we should probably follow the texts - I'm a bit doubtful though. Talpedia (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]