Another conservative who doesn't believe in the Constitution, Rep. David Meeks | Arkansas Blog

Another conservative who doesn't believe in the Constitution, Rep. David Meeks


As I've said before, the rigid constructionists of the Republican Party hold no honor for the Constitutional requirement of a legal defense for criminal defendants. It has became SOP to call a Democratic candidate "soft on crime" if he or she works as a criminal defense lawyer.

Police never err, see. If a person is arrested, they are guilty and summary prison should follow.

I noted Republican Stacy Hurst's unhinged attack on Democrat Clarke Tucker in this vein for a single pro bono criminal case he handled. Now I see Rep. David Meeks pulling out the same tired card on his Democratic opponent Frank Shaw, a Conway lawyer. He asked for probation for a client; ergo he is soft on crime. Good lawyers presumably are supposed to say: "My client is guilty, your honor. Give him the maximum."

It's un-American. It's reprehensible. And, judging by its increasing use, Republicans think it works to stake a position against the right to legal counsel.

PS — Fair reminder — even if it comes from a GOPer employing this sleazy tactic for Hurst —  Mike Ross is guilty, too, of citing a Chinese spy on Asa Hutchinson's legal client list. That's wrong, too.

UPDATE: Shaw tells me — surprise — that the Republican mailer is missing important contest in this case. Shaw's remark about probation being the right course in the case came after a recitation in the news account of agreement to that from all parties in the case, including representatives of the victim. I hope to have that before long.

Defense lawyer John W. Hall also gives Meeks a scolding for his warped view of the Constitution.
UPDATE II: Where Meeks only quot es Shaw as saying probation was the right thing in a sex crime, here's the rest of the quote.


Comments (8)

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Add a comment