1 Comment

I'm sorry that you're under the impression that people accused of crimes are guilty before being proved guilty. That's not the way the Constitution works, and I'm increasingly skeptical of the motives of people who use scary terms and hypotheticals to not only gain points against their rival party but also deprive poor individuals of due process and their constitutional rights. I read this article twice. Here's what I noticed: the most fear-mongering outcomes you proposed were clear hypotheticals. Also, it seems that you feel anyone accused (not convicted) of being a "sexual predator" should be deprived of representation in court if they cannot afford their fees. I pay taxes, too, and I want my taxes to pay for a robust defense for my fellow citizens when accused. Also, I am aware that the term "sexual predator" is a term increasingly used to demonize and encourage violence against a growing class of people who, in fact, are not committing sexual crimes, are not interested in sexual crimes, and have historically been accused and convicted of sexual crimes unjustly for much of this country's history. The worst part of it all is that you probably don't even care about any of that. The crimes you fear-monger about are incredibly rare. Crime is down across the board except for handgun crimes which you refuse to do anything about. You don't care about real crime. You care about encouraging violence against and stripping the constitutional rights of marginalized, but innocent people in order to get more dollars to secure your political careers.

Expand full comment