Zero-risk logic justifies detention despite a 4 percent recidivism rate

Evidence

Pressed by defence counsel to explain the risks that someone like Mr Jaballah posed, P.G. relied on the example of Guantanamo Bay. According to a news article, ten people released from Guantanamo re-engaged in terrorist activity. When it was pointed out to him that only 10 of the 250 released re-offended, P.G. was undeterred. Since there is no way to predict which 10 will re-offend, and as long as the risk is not zero, no one should be released. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 132

When it was pointed out to him that only 10 of the 250 released re-offended, P.G. was undeterred. Since there is no way to predict which 10 will re-offend, and as long as the risk is not zero, no one should be released. — Sherene Razack, Casting Out, 132

Categorization

• SEED: Essay angle: the ‘as long as the risk is not zero’ standard and what it would do if applied consistently — to parole, to driving, to pharmaceuticals.
• QUESTION: Is a non-zero-risk release standard applied in any other preventive-detention or parole context, or is this a uniquely demanded impossibility?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims…, 132