Tokens: 99
.
It
can
not
be
maintained
that
the
“
nature
”
or
“
purpose
”
of
a
penalty
can
be
changed
retrospectively
when
the
material
conditions
of
detention
improve
.
The
misleading
nature
of
this
construction
becomes
very
apparent
if
one
asks
about
the
exact
time
when
the
detention
changed
“
nature
”
or
“
purpose
”
:
under
the
majority
’s
reasoning
,
after
the
addition
of
exactly
how
many
square
meters
does
preventive
detention
cease
to
be
punishment
,
according
to
M.
v.
Germany
,
[
269
]
to
become
an
acceptable
therapy
placement
?
Of
course
,
this
rhetorical
question
could
be
further
complicated
:
how
many
kitchen
units
,
how
many
separate
bathrooms
,
how
many
TV
sets
or
body
-
building
machines
,
how
many
doctors
and
nurses
,
how
many
visiting
hours
or
phone
calls
should
there
be
for
a
preventive
detention
unit
to
change
nature
and
for
detention
therein
to
change
its
“
purpose
”
?
Since
the
detention
conditions
vary
greatly
from
one
preventive
detention
centre
to
another[270
]
,
how
can
the
preventive
detention
order
change
nature
according
to
the
part
of
the
country
and
the
specific
centre
where
is
it
going
to
be
implemented
?
Can
the
same
preventive
detention
order
change
nature
multiple
times
when
the
detained
person
changes
from
a
“
friendlier
”
centre
to
another
less
“
friendly
”
centre
and
back
again
to
the
first
one
?
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O