I saw this movie at the theater at the time. It shows how old I am. A lot of water under the bridge since that time.
Lately, I haven't been writing much. Where to go from here? It seems that I have covered everything on this blog at some point. Maybe I am just looking for something to do. I need something to write about. Why not this?
Yesterday, I watched this DVD with the commentary on. Several things struck me about it as I was watching and listening to the commentary. One thing is how much the liberals sound the same now as back then. The movie was considered to be "very controversial" at the time. I chuckle now at the thought. Why would it be controversial?
The liberals, you see, were "all broken up" by the rights of the accused. I am using some of Dirty Harry's words there. You see, when the District Attorney was chewing out Harry over his police work, Dirty Harry said how he was "all broken up" by this man's rights. Harry violated the man's rights, so they "had to set him free". As the commentary said, this was the key part of the film. The film makers were making a point.
The point is that a guilty man was set free because of some hyper-technicality of the law. So, what is more important- justice being served, or this man's rights? The liberals are "all broken up" about this man's rights, who they know is guilty of a series of heinous crimes. There was no doubt of the man's guilt. The District Attorney in the flick says that he "doesn't want him out on the streets anymore than you do". That means that the higher value being protected here, according to the liberals, is a guilty man's rights. This is the choice that was being made--protecting the guilty as opposed to protecting the innocent. Hiding behind the law doesn't change that fact.
It is somewhat amusing to have liberals screech at the rest of us who concern ourselves with doing what we consider to be right when they protect people who they know are guilty. For nothing has changed much. It still happens today.
No comments:
Post a Comment