To see that, let's conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine, if you will, that the criminal in question is not a two-bit prick (revered by the bleeding-heart populists), but a wealthy business owner. Would you still uphold this persons "right" to pursue his fraudulent scheming protected by legal technicalities until he "runs out of gas?" If so, Enron would still be in business, and you would not make enough money to pay for your utility bill.
Jim D:
Please name a "bleeding-heart populist" who reveres two-bit pricks, This seems a straw-man argument. It's a case of unnecessary rhetorical flourish, what might be called dangling innuendo. It's also a cheap way to avoid rational argument.
==========
Ah, precisely.
Gracias for pointing this out.
And I'll go further...
Wojtek, your example is even worse than it appeared when I first read it because you posit (by implication) that there's a class of people with power who're somehow defending the 'right' of criminals to commit terrible acts.
Due process is often defended by constitution mindful legal professionals and activists but not someone's 'right' to carjack, invade homes, rape and otherwise disrupt and destroy.
The more time I spend thinking about that little "thought experiment" of yours, the more reprehensible it seems.
Quite shameful, really.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends"...Momus