You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #62: Not the Magic Bullet [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-14-03 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. Not the Magic Bullet
Edited on Tue Oct-14-03 07:26 PM by dpibel
Edited for better analogy.

There are plenty of capital cases where DNA evidence isn't available. What do you do with those? Rely on the proven fallibility of eyewitnesses.

Riddle me this:

One of the reasons people make the easy slide from opposing the death penalty to "coddling criminals" is simple lack of empathy: "I'm not a criminal, so that could never happen to me."

But y'know those people who are cleared through late-breaking application of DNA evidence? They're just as innocent as you are. They got swept up into a Kafka-esque nightmare scenario.

I guarantee that, if you got caught up in that kind of a nightmare, you'd think the death penalty was a bad idea.

Your strange vehement contention that affording the prisoners at Guantanamo some form of due process is "supporting terrorists" is cut from the same bolt of cloth. You have nothing--literally not one thing--to support your belief that those people are terrorists other than the word of the Bush regime.

Now, you may consider that to be all the evidence you need (and I don't use that "may" as a purely rhetorical device--based on your posts, I think you really may believe that), but, last I heard, that group of folks doesn't have that good a reputation for credibility.

It is truly amazing that anybody who claims to be a patriotic American could argue that basic due process, which is prescribed by the Constitution, is coddling anybody. How far would you like to take that argument? Who's entitled to due process, and who isn't. John Ashcroft says drug users support terrorists. Should we do away with trials for them, too? For that matter, those really wicked murderers you think should die right away--why give them trials?

You've got some lines you think are really bright. But where do you really draw them? Who deserves no due process? Who deserves to die without benefit of an adequate defense?

Just repeating, "I support the death penalty, and you people support criminals," doesn't get it done. Support your position if you can. But saying it over and over proves nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC