Is there anyone in the history of the US who is so horrible and needs to be convicted of a crime so badly that they should be deprived of their right to be tried in front of a fair and impartial jury?
While we're on legal theory, is there ever a point where we can balance the current/recent actions of a person with the past actions/allegations and base judgement more on the recent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
In answer to your first question, I would say no. I know there are those who would like to people accused of terrorism their rights he tried, but I disagree with that and think everyone deserves the right to be tried in front of a fair and objective jury.
At the same time, I think there are people out there who are clearly guilty of harmful behaviors and crimes and, while they may not have enough evidence against them to be convicted of those crimes, it would be foolish to trust them. For instance, if there was a person who had plentiful evidence against him, including his own words, pointing out that he was a sexual predator, it would be foolish to trust that man around any one who he might hurt. And of course, it goes without saying, that such a person should not be given positions of responsibility because that would be foolish and dangerous.
In other words, conviction of a crime requires one level of data and support. But placing people in positions of responsibility when there is clear evidence against them suggesting they are not trustworthy... this requires another level of rational thinking.
To your second question, it really depends on the circumstances. You might forgive a child molester who has turned his life around and gives no sign of being a child molester anymore. At the same time, we would never want to place such a person in a position of responsibility over a school, for instance, or a nation. I believe there is such a thing as propriety and good common sense.
Your irrational obsession with making everything s vehicle for your Trump hatred is getting old. It takes a special kind of person to answer two yes or no questions with 4 paragraphs (two of which are totally unrelated to the post) of mostly blather.
I think it's a complex moral and philosophical question worthy of deeper thought than a mere yes or no.
Then it’s too bad you chose the TDS screed instead of that.
The first phrase is grammatically incorrect, the second is merely a wordy way to say yes.
The second and third paragraphs aren’t on topic, or deep, and add nothing.
The fourth paragraph is equivocal and meandering, it essentially says both.
If that’s your version of morally and philosophically complex and depth, I can’t help.
I'm sorry you don't like my answers. They are my answers to that question. They're clear and direct, and yet provide important background and grounds that are important for me. Perhaps if you don't want to know people's actual answers to questions, you shouldn't ask?
How about you, what are your answers?
Do you oppose imprisoning alleged terrorists without trials as Bush did and Obama continued? Here is the ACLU's response to the question (warning, it's an even longer answer than mine!)
https://www.aclu.org/other/indefinite-detention
Re: "Obsession with Trump..." "TDS screed..."
? I never mentioned Trump. I gave examples that included child predators and sexual predators. I guess you're assuming Trump is guilty of such (and you probably aren't wrong), but I didn't mention Trump at all.
I pointed out the problems with your responses. I’m sorry you think that added depth to the conversation. I didn’t say they weren’t answers, just bad answers.
As to your TDS, the fact that you’ve just spent multiple comments trying to label Trump a sexual predator is just a coincidence. Maybe if you could stop relating virtually every thread to one of your two obsessions it would help.
Again, I am sorry you find my answers less than satisfying. They are my answers to that question. I don't think they're bad answers, but you are welcome to do so. And your answers to your own questions?
Also, Trump is not the only sexual predator out there. I'm opposed to all sexual predators, and opposed to giving them a pass, no matter who they are. And while that includes the president, it's not limited to him. You, on the other hand, appear fine with giving him a pass, or not even acknowledging what he has done. Regardless, I did not bring him up. Not at all.
Dan,
I’ve said this before, so I probably shouldn’t have to repeat it so often, but I guess it just takes a while.
When I do a post in the form of a question(s) I do it because I’m trying to get answers from others rather than push out my opinion. I find that it helps if I don’t answer at first. It allows for answers from others, as opposed to people responding to my answers.
Given the number of times you’ve asked about this, it’s clear that this concept confuses you. In the future I’ll try to do some sort of disclaimer which will hopefully help you out.
Impressive. You’ve managed to twist my words and ignore the actual reasons your answers didn’t accomplish what you wanted them to.
Post a Comment