First, I am not accusing FReepers, broadly speaking, of wanting him held on nothing. I was thinking of ladyinred's comment in her Post #532, which was as follows:
"I am not surprised however about his DNA not matching as I didn't think he killed JonBenet in the first place. He needs to be put away regardless."
That point of view had been expressed countless times on these JBR threads since Karr first came to public attention. The only problem with it is, other than the MISDEMEANOR possession of child porn charges in California, zero information has come to light that Karr ever committed any crime.
Have we come to the point in this country when we "put people away" just because they are weird, mentally disturbed, give false confessions to famous murder cases, etc.? If so, then we have just thrown our Constitution out the window.
You may be disappointed in me, txrangerette, but your disappointment is misplaced. Any Constitutional conservative, which I am, would be disappointed in the desire to put someone away without evidence of that person having committed any crime. That's what tyrants do, not Americans in our Constitutional Republic.
As for Karr, he may very well have pedophilic tendencies. He certain seems to, at any rate. However, to the best of my knowledge he has never been accused of acting on them. It may be disgusting, but it is not a crime to fantasize about molesting children. Do not interpret this statement as excusing Karr, for it does not. Rather, I am pointing out that we do not get put in jail in this country because of what people think we might do, only for what we do if it is against the law. If my defense of that key principle in the Bill of Rights disappoints you, I would say that is unfortunate.
You make excellent points. It is a slippery slope. You put someone away for a criminal tendency, although they haven't committed a crime... what will eventually be considered a crime, being conservative, for example?
I agree with you. I am shocked by some of the coverage on TV recently. People said things, with little evidence, didn't even use the word accused. I'm not even talking about the Ramsey case, per se. The one thing I have heard was the case at the school, where parents were disturbed. He wasn't charged for that from what I gather, but he was let go even so. He does seem very creepy to me, jsut from the videos I've seen of him, but how much of that is my assuming he's a molester of someone?
He should be tried for whatever he's charged with (kiddie porn), but that is not murder and rape. It is disturbing that he was in Thailand though, and I thought MAYBE that is what he was REALLY being arrested for: something he did there. It appears that is not the case.