Reply #101: I know that there is no point responding to you.

[ProfessorPlum]

Do you know why? Every time someone makes a cogent point counter to your argument, you never stop and say, "Huh. That's a good point. But . . . " You just keep barreling on and usually do not respond to the point.

If, however, you actually want to discuss this issue, I think where Dean is coming from is that

1. It is bad when the state executes an innocent person

2. It is roughly as bad when the state fails to stop someone from killing an innocent person

In an ideal world, neither 1 nor 2 would happen. I am absolutely for strong defendents rights, because it is the price we have to pay to minimize the chance of 1 happening. But I understand the frustration of people who have seen that when we minimize the chance of 1 happening, we increase the chance of 2 happening. In an ideal world, it would be great to minimize the odds of both 1 and 2 happening at the same time.

That's all there is to it. No need to get your panties in a bunch.

And by the way, your post and your thread title have got to be the most misleading one that I have ever seen on this board. The mild basis for your wildly overblown conclusion even beats farcical post titles that I have put here, like "Governor Dean eats puppies" or "Dean drinks the blood of infants". You have finally killed satire with your effort to deliberately "misunderstand" and smear Dean. Congratulations. "Dean supports killing innocent people?" You're over the top.