Who Are You For? And Once I Have Your Answer I Will Know What Rights Certain Kinds of Criminal Defendants Ought to Have. Isn't That Correct?

A student newspaper recently reported that a law professor recently said:

You are either for sexual predators or you are for their victims.

Well now, what do you think of that?

In asking ths question, I am not alluding to Biblical or Presidential statements asserting that "you" are either for something or against something.

The law professor's statement made me think of slogans that were tossed about in the 1960s during the Warren Court controversies:

Either you are for criminals or you're for their victims [or law & order, or whatnot].

However fractured our debates and opinions might still be about the rights of criminal defendants, I thought we had gotten beyond such slogans.

I'm astonished. And I shudder. The law professor's statement, taken literally, implies that alleged(!) sexual predators have no rights. (Indeed, one wonders whether the law professor thinks it is worth bothering to have a trial for [alleged] sexual predators. After all, they're sexual predators, so why bother? Isn't that the logic of the position?)

Next Monday I will find a copy of that newspaper and I will quote it exactly. I don't want to be accused of exaggeration.

the dynamic evidence page

coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law