Re: ditz in office

[Adam Shostack <adam@bwh.harvard.edu>]

Duncan Frissell wrote:

(Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking in all caps:)
| "AT A CERTAIN POINT, YOUR RIGHTS MUST BE ABRIDGED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD."
| 
| The statement might simply be her response to a question about convicted
| rapists not having to submit to an AIDS test.

	IMHO, there is a world of difference between abrogating the
rights of a convicted criminal and the rights of the accused.  Society
seems to have agreed that conviceted criminals should be stripped of
certain rights, such as their freedom and or their ownership of
property, after their conviction.

	Since the question of "Did he have AIDS?" clearly impacts the
severity of the crime committed and the impact it may have on the
victim, I don't see this as an amazingly shock provoking example of
the rights of a criminal being taken away, especially in light of how
difficult it seems to be to obtain a conviction for rape.

	I would not be willing to accept such testing on the basis of
anything but a conviction.  An accusation (in my mind) is not enough
to force a test, nor to force the disclosure of a previous test.

Adam

-- 
Adam Shostack 				       adam@bwh.harvard.edu

Politics.  From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small,
annoying bloodsucker.

Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?