It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.
It is different but do you expect a trial for person A saying person B should be locked up to first hold a mock trial for person B without access or standing to actually do so correctly before they can render a verdict on person A? Objectively unreasonable.
This is also massively prone to abuse. Even creating a plausible context for prosecuting someone creates the potential for effectively punishing critics even if everyone one of them gets off. This is further assuming that they actually get off even if innocent by your standards and mine.
Then there is the simple fact that based on US law this is sufficiently contrary to our laws that it would require a constitutional amendment which would be impossible to pass. It doesn’t matter if it could be passed in your country it certainly couldn’t be passed in this one.