> but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial.
There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.
No. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.
Obviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.
It is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.
Yes, it is obvious that allowing the government to jail people an undetermined amount of time before a trial is defacto punishing without trial and unethical. Even "alleged" serial killers deserve a speedy trial because they aren't guilty until proven so. Rights aren't about the governments interest, they're about ours, and allowing detention without trial for years at a time is wrong under all scenarios.
I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.
and the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.
>Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested?
I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.
Meanwhile, in China, you have bookstore owners, bankers, and government officials "disappearing" left and right.