|
Post by Umbra on Apr 4, 2012 15:13:49 GMT -5
You can read the NYT article hereOpinions? All I have to say is I'm a definite con of this ruling.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 5, 2012 0:41:29 GMT -5
Sounds excessive and ripe for personal rights violations. I would understand a strip search if, say, they suspected you of having explosives under your clothes, but... yeah, no, in 99% of cases, that'd just be humiliating and completely unnecessary.
I don't really like how they cite drugs as a reason, either... although my grievances with the War on Drugs are best left for another time.
|
|
|
Post by Hiro the Half-Elf on Apr 5, 2012 5:39:41 GMT -5
Well, it's not like they're being strip-searched in the street. This is when they're being placed in jails- though the article has a lot of ambiguity about it.
It seems a little riddic, though. Someone you pick up off the street for public drunkenness probably isn't going to have a shiv tucked into their briefs. Though, in all honesty, I figured this was already the practice.
Justice Kennedy's arguments are bollocks. "9-11 WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IF WE STRIP-SEARCHED EVERYONE WHO GOT SPEEDING TICKETS." "TIMOTHY MCVEIGH WOULD HAVE NEVER BOMBED THE FEDERAL BUILDING." Yes, yes, yes. Whatever you say. It's a textbook example of piss-poor logic.
|
|
|
Post by Youngster Joey on Apr 5, 2012 10:08:24 GMT -5
It doesn't matter where it takes place. It's still degrading. I had to undergo a supervised, nonoptional strip procedure for admission into a hospital once, and believe me, they're humiliating no matter where they're done or under what circumstance.
|
|
|
Post by Hiro the Half-Elf on Apr 5, 2012 10:45:40 GMT -5
I had to do the same, once, and I didn't really think it was the greatest offense to human rights.
|
|