Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, April 20, 2008 2:07:12 AM
How often have we heard this reply "Well, maybe he did, but this other guy..."
Most recently I saw this defense offered for Obama's close ties to domestic terrorist Billy Ayers. The defense offered by a pro-Obama blogger was "Well, why aren't you going after Daley? He's friends with Ayers too!" Even ignoring the fact that Daley is not running for president while Obama is, this is simply a worthless defense. It simply does not make one candidate good because someone else did wrong as well. Even if the other person were in a similar position, it would not excuse one that another did wrong, it simply makes them both guilty.
I thought every school child learned this by age five. Yet it appears political partisans, especially Obama supporters, missed those few years in elementary school.
Think of it this way, if a man were charged with murder, would it be right to release him because someone else committed two murders? Would it be right to release him if someone else were acquitted on a charge of murder they actually committed?
Of course not. One man's misdeed is in no way excused by the misdeeds of another.
The only time this even makes a small bit of sense is when there is an either-or choice. If it were the general election, and Obama were facing McCain, it may make sense to say "Yes, Obama did X, but so did McCain." It still would not excuse the deed by either man, but at least in that context it would mean we cannot use that issue to decide between the two. (Assuming, of course, they both did commit the same misdeed, and there is no context explaining it away on either side, and that the two deeds in question are actually even comparable. Things those seeking excuses by pointing fingers often overlook.)
But that is rarely what we see. Instead we see people pointing to completely unrelated public figures, accusing them of the same misdeed, or even unrelated misdeeds, in an attempt to excuse their candidate.
It just makes no sense.
POSTSCRIPT
I Just realized when I asked if one man should be acquitted because another did wrong, that that position was actually argued before. When there was debate over the beating trials in Jena, among other more substantial arguments, some actually argued that the black youths charged should be acquitted because white youths had committed other crimes. That was even more idiotic, as it was simply based on collective racial guilt (ie. If whites as a whole get one crime, blacks as a whole should get one crime.) But it is one of the few times I have seen anyone seriously argue the point I thought was so idiotic when writing the original post, that a crime by one man means another cannot be tried.
I suppose similar logic is found int he idea that America is imperfect, so we cannot criticize other nations, and in the terrible misuse of the "let he who is without sin" quote to deny anyone the right to judge, but in those cases they do not state it quite as explicitly.
Obviously, I do not agree with any of those positions. An individual's guilt or innocence is his or hers alone. Even if 100 guilty men are set free, the 101st still must be tried on his own merits, the past miscarriages of justice have nothing to do with him.