Quote# 131524

No individual is required to sacrifice due process simply for being a man, and that because many men are guilty of sexual assault. There is no collective price to pay.

In a perfect world I’d absolutely agree. I WANT to agree. Yet, I feel “due process” is as impacted by “If sense were common everyone would have it.” as “Affirmative Consent”. “Due Process” simply isn’t consistent from state to state, county to county, town to town, judge to judge, sheriff to sheriff. Would our friend Arpaio have applied the same “due process” as a sheriff in California? To a white man accused of raping a brown skinned woman? To a brown skinned man accused of raping a white woman?

I just don’t believe “due process”, as we want it to exist, exists in this country. Therefore … we can’t make it the defining goal of protection … for anything, by anyone involving gender, race, or class that’s not upper class.
I have no idea what all of that means, but simply disregarding due process makes even less sense.

“Due process” is a myth as long as it is allowed to be interpreted independently within jurisdictions. A brown person rarely, if ever, gets the same “due process” in the south as a white person. Basically, “due process” means whatever the folks in a position of power in any given jurisdiction want it to mean, so saying we should trust it to be the yardstick by which a mans culpability in a sexual assault case is measured is useless.
Due process is not a myth, and casting it aside because it may applied unevenly makes no sense.

And it is not a yardstick to judge culpability, it is the process of getting there.

Due process IS a myth and there is no BETTER reason to cast it aside and come up with a replacement than the fact it IS, not may be, applied unevenly.

Bengstra, Daily Kos 8 Comments [9/10/2017 11:39:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Azereaux

Got it. You don't understand the meaning of the words "due process". Due process does not mean "legal consequences" or "sentencing". It means the legal process. Idiot.

9/11/2017 7:16:07 AM

Anon-e-moose

So you don't want Rule of Law. Gotcha.

The "Purge" films must be fapping material to you, then.


9/11/2017 7:29:50 AM

Doubting Thomas

If we didn't have due process, we'd have a system like in North Korea where they break down your door and haul you and your family away to a gulag, often without you even knowing why.

9/11/2017 7:51:27 AM

Nemo

Doubting Thomas, that argument only works if you think North Korea is a bad place to live, which sadly a fringe few Americans will argue against. Mostly white upper middle class twats who will never live there. I suspect Bengstra here might be one such person.

9/11/2017 8:18:35 AM

Psalmanazaar

This is just like saying "objective journalism in its ideal form does not exist, therefore I'll get all my news from Breitbart." Or, "don't call the fire department: sometimes they fail to put out fires."

It's so obviously foolish it must be disingenuous. You are willing to let some people suffer because you want them to.

9/11/2017 9:12:48 AM

pyro

If we didn't have due process, we'd have a system like in North Korea where they break down your door and haul you and your family away to a gulag, often without you even knowing why.


[Bengstra]I was under the impression that that's exactly what it's like for PoC in white-dominated countries like the US.[/Bengstra]

9/11/2017 9:32:43 AM

Demon Duck of Doom

You clearly have no idea what due process means.

9/11/2017 12:40:51 PM

Mix Master Mikaeus

Just because due process is applied inconsistently does not make it useless. That's like saying safety precautions are useless because they don't always work.

9/12/2017 2:02:05 AM

1 | top: comments page