It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
...as opposed to assuming that they're seeing the world in a different way, a way that just has the wrong consequences when their own assumptions no longer apply.
For example, I just read this in a comment:
Now, now, don’t be silly – McCain is simply expressing one of the articles of faith for Republicans – that due process is only for wealthy, privileged folks accused of crimes that are associated with a colour of collar that is as pale as their skin.
(from this page)
Is this snark?
If it is, then fine.
If it isn't, though...we've got a slight problem. (And you know there are some people for which it isn't.)
See, I can't think of anyone who in their right mind would actually, explicitly, say that due process is only for "wealthy, privileged folks" with white skin and white-collar crimes. (Pointing out that "color" match is witty...but irrelevant.)
If you ask someone who agrees with McCain on this, they're likely going to give you a justification along these lines or so:
1. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not a citizen. (Which, as far as I've heard, is false, as he is a citizen, like it or not.)
2. He didn't become a citizen through normal means, because he was granted it for reason of asylum. (As far as I know, being granted asylum doesn't make a person any less of a citizen in legal terms; correct me if I'm wrong.)
3. The heinousness of his crime requires that he be tried as a non-citizen enemy combatant. (Pester them a bit further and you'll get "requires" changed to "really ought to mean".)
4. His (allegedly) doing this for the cause of Islamic extremism means that he should be dealt with like other Islamic extremist terrorists.
5. His actions show that he is a monster, and lacks human compassion. Therefore he shouldn't be treated like a human.
6. He just doesn't deserve it, period.
7. Punishing him as severely as we can will deter further acts of terrorism. It will show that they should not, ever, fuck with us.
Note that the majority of these reasons -- #2 through #6 -- are all expressions of values. They are not expressions of law, or legal precedent; instead, they assume that the law ought to work the way we personally see the notion of justice working. #1 is based in a false assumption. #7 is also based what is likely a false assumption: it assumes that severe punishments will deter people who (at least in other instances) have generally shown their willingness to give up their lives completely to achieve an objective. It's also based in very short-term thinking, because it neglects what the action will do in the long run: while one may be able to deter some violence now, the action engenders resentment, and will end up creating a situation where everyone hates everyone else and is constantly looking to fuck over everyone else at the first hint of weakness. (Is that really the world you want to live in?)
But my point is that, aside from #1, the rest of them run on assumptions that the things work the way one wants them to work -- be they the legal system, social psychology, or whatever.
And if you look at them on the surface, they make sense.
So, accusing the other side of being a bunch of jackasses is not a recipe for doing anything, other than inflaming both sides more.