posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:09 AM
Let's try an analogy. What if I told you that that the FDA is too expensive and unnecessary, so from now on, the FDA was going to just act on their
initial impulse without a thorough process? They're only going to do studies on drugs with names that sound scarry, and they're only going to check
for bacteria in food that smells funny? Would you tollerate that?
What if I told you that from now on, anyone who could speak without an accent could just walk right across America's border without being asked for
What if your kid was complaining about feeling bad, but your doctor refused to see your kid because from across the lobby, your kid looked healthy?
So why would you say that due process should only be rendered when at first glance it appears the individual might be innocent?
We PRESUME that you are innocent and then make a thorough examination of any suspicions from there, just like your doctor has to presume that your
child is complaining for a reason and investigate from there.
This man still has rights.
The necessity of his rights being kept in tact is for your benefit as much as his.
We have to make sure the evidence is all as it seems, for the benefit of those who might be faced with unreliable evidence. There can't be exceptions
to that process, because the exception completely negates the point of the process.
You get to the process (trial) because the evidence seems so clear-cut that the DA is sure not one person in twelve will harbor any reasonable doubt.
And then in that process, sometimes, albeit perhaps not all that often, something turns up and it's, "wow, I can't believe we almost got that
If you make an exception, where if they are absolutely sure that the evidence is going to be incontrovertible, they can just execute you right there,
guess what is going to happen to almost everybody who gets arrested. Afterall, they wouldn't prosecute you if they didn't think the evidence lined
up against you (unless of course you're a lacrosse player, but thats another story).
I can understand why you may favor expanding capital punishment for those convicted, why you may favor carrying out death sentences immediately after
all appeals are exhausted, etc. But why you would want to alter any part of the process that an innocent man is ever likely to face (everything that
currently preceedes conviction) is beyond me.
The best argument that can be made against this man's rights is that maybe he should have been executed for his previous crimes already, and that
argument, though it may have a moral point, simply doesn't work legally. Remember, what is legal is not necessarily what is right- it is an imperfect
reflection of what we see as right. We can't just ignore the law and "do the right thing" because that's changing the rules in mid game. You've
got to go through the motions of changing the law. So if he already should have been dead, you just weep for the fact that we didn't change the law
in time to stop him, then you go about the business of changing the law so that it doesn't happen next time. But you can't strip him of his existing
legal rights at this point.