The moral relevance of both is the same: one who cannot adequately be held accountable can be subjected to LTPD if doing so is necessary to ensure that he does not pose a risk to others that outweighs the loss of his own liberty.
POWs typically fit into this category of those who may be subjected to LTPD because the typical POW is, and will remain until the war is over or he is released from military service, privileged to engage in combat with the detaining power.
Some STs can also be justifiably subjected to LTPD for a related reason.
Therefore, it seems implausible that allowing citizen STs to be held in LTPD would provide a significant increase in overall security.
There are only three ways that it can be imposed that respect the rights of individuals: punitive detention, the length of which is proportional to the severity of the crime committed; short-term preventive detention (STPD), which does not demand too much of an individual; and LTPD of individuals whose autonomy is compromised in one of two ways: either they lack the ability to govern themselves as normal autonomous agents, or they cannot, for extrinsic reasons, be held accountable as normal autonomous agents.
It is only LTPD in the war on terror that clearly crosses a moral line.
is practicing LTPD, in a more or less disguised way, in its domestic criminal justice system.
Though imposed for consequentialist reasons, susceptibility to LTPD can be understood as an element of a punishment: a waiver of the right to benefit from the normal presumption that one will be a law-abiding person.
The fourth stage in the LTPD model is termed the 'training to compete' stage.
The fifth stage of development in the LTPD model is termed the 'training-to-win' stage.
* The LTPD model has aligned itself to emphasise training capacities during specific 'windows of opportunity'
* There is a lack of scientific evidence to support the concept of different windows of opportunity and therefore different age separation of the LTPD stages for girls v.