Democracy, rights and freedoms and accountability only mean something when it isn't easy. If the government gets to pick and choose when to "grant us" our rights and freedoms, then they aren't worth anything. Politicians are usually inclined to take the easy way out. They need to be applauded when they do the right thing, especially when they know that it probably won't be popular.
Why was this the right thing:
- The Government anticipated losing in court and having to pay more than what they agreed to pay. We generally seem to want the government to operate like a business and spend out tax money well. Settling in a case like this is what a business would do.
- His rights were violated by the Government (as confirmed by the Supreme Court).
- He was a child at the time directed by adults. He can't be held to the same standard as an adult who is acting on his own.
- We aren't condoning the actions of the adults in this and we aren't even dealing with his actual guilt or innocence. It is the action/inaction of the Government that is in question.
- His confession was extracted through torture. That makes it very questionable. It would not be admissible in any normal court of law. As far as I know, the charges weren't independently proven.
- It is important that the Government be accountable. Politicians and Bureaucrats can't be allowed to use the power of the Government and their positions to bully, mistreat and stonewall citizens. Personally, I'd rather see those who made the decisions fined or put in jail but that isn't how it works (unfortunately).
I know that many people don't get this and are quite prepared to support situational ethics rather than basic principles. A strong democracy has to stick by its principles, even when it isn't easy.
