Thursday, February 4, 2010

 

Yglesias on Conservatives and the "Justice" System

I actually really like reading Matt Yglesias. Maybe I'm naive, but I think he is pretty sincere. It's too bad he just has a horrible theory of how the economy works.

Anyway, Yglesias has been on fire lately with the conservative pundits' horror over letting the courts deal with an (alleged) bad guy. Try this:
[W]hen discussing this whole subject it’s important to note that to the best of my knowledge, the conservative view is that the criminal justice system isn’t the appropriate way to deal with any sort of criminal. Conservatives didn’t like the Miranda ruling or any of the Warren Court’s other famous criminal procedure rulings. And since the Supreme Court became more conservative, right-wing justices have consistently sought to narrow the exclusionary rule, make it more difficult for convicted felons to get hearings for new evidence, etc. For all the “tea party” talk of freedom, and the right’s general blather about “limited government,” unrestricted violence by the agents of the state is a core priority for the right-wing. The view is that ideally you just detain people indefinitely. If forced, they get a military commission. If you have to have a civilian court, the accused shouldn’t have any rights. People should be tortured as a routine investigative technique. Wars should be routinely against foreign countries that haven’t attacked us. It’s a worldview soaked in violence and authoritarianism, and the relatively narrow question of what venue you try terrorism suspects in is just a small part of it.
Sure, he paints with a broad brush, but there are a heck of a lot of people to whom that applies perfectly.



Comments:
Matt Yglesias is just to ignorant to read.

I'll forgive partisanship and left wing economics.

I won't forgive raging ignorance of every topic under the sun.
 
too
 
Google search cue of the day;


type in "celebrating"

"celebrating Christmas" comes _after_ celebrating "winter solstice" among all sorts of other things.

Of course, it's not like anyone celebrates Christmas or links to web sites about celebrating Christmas, not like they do "winter solstice".
 
I'm against the exclusionary rule, for reasons Bruce Benson laid out in "The Enterprise of Law". If the evidence obtained illegally shows that someone is actually guilty of a crime, why is it an additional harm to let the jury hear it? If the police violate the law but fail to obtain evidence, the exclusionary rule has no effect! The simple solution is that the police should be required to obey the law or face the consequences like anyone else. I believe Rothbard put forth the same dictum for his privatized protection agencies.
 
TGGP: Thomas Moore explained why in his argument about trees and the devil. If the only way for the police to obtain evidence is by illegal means, than too bad. Better for 100 guilty to go free to protect one innocent than the other way round.
 
The Blackadder Says:

Thomas Moore explained why in his argument about trees and the devil.

I'm pretty sure they didn't have the exclusionary rule in 16th century England.

Better for 100 guilty to go free to protect one innocent than the other way round.

Letting 100 guilty people go free seems like a rather poor way to protect the innocent, particularly where, as here, the rule in question can only offer protection to the guilty.
 
The Blackadder Says:

Btw, isn't it also the case that anarcho-libertarians think "the criminal justice system isn’t the appropriate way to deal with any sort of criminal"?
 
I think those from the neo-con camp, now joining the tea-party movement, thought that they were going to reap the benefits of the plundering. I really think that a lot of people on the right are upset because they thought they were on the same team as those in charge. It is as if they thought all the looting coming from Washington was fine because they were looting others for their benefit. Then when the collapse ensued these people realized they were just dues paying cheerleaders, and the dues were devastatingly expensive. I doubt many of them have actually changed, and are more likely to follow for a Hitler than a Ron Paul when things collapse. Too many people will be willing to sell their soul to get out of their new found poverty.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]