[UPDATED:] Dumbest. Naugle. Post. Ever.

[UPDATE:] Apparently Senior Taco agreed that he was wrong.  As the comments point out, Naugle (or someone else on RAB) has scrubbed the offending comment and replaced it with the post, "Stop the Death Penalty Says Trail[sic] Lawyers"  It should be noted that judges and prosecutors are members of the ABA, so this isn't some defense bar organization that did the report.  It should also be noted that the new post says it's linking to a story in the Plain Dealer, but instead goes to The Western Star.  So "Right Angle" isn't doing much better than Naugle did.

Why does Naugle continue to try to preen about like he's some sort of George Will intellectual when he's nothing more than a George W. partisan?  Give it up, Matt, your ill-informed opinions are getting easier and easier to reveal to be the fraud that they are.  From Naugle's post on the ABA Committee's report on Ohio's imposition of the death penalty:

And I probably won’t be accused of having the most civilized opinion on this matter, but where in the Constitution does it provide for legal cousel to indigents? This was just another right made up by the courts. My opinion is, if you’re going to kill someone, or put yourself in a situation where you could possibly be accused of murder, you should make sure that you can pay for legal help.

Naugle is proof that just because you worked around lawyers doesn't mean you know the law.  If he did, he'd know the text of the Sixth Amendment to to U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel."

The right to counsel was not, something that was dreamed up by some activists liberal judges, but has explicit underpinnings in the Constitution, especially when considered in light of the federal and state due process clauses. 

Art I, Sec. 10 of the Ohio Constitution states:

"In any trial, in any court, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and with counsel"

So to sit there and blindly state that the right of counsel for indigent defendants is somehow a liberal fiction in the face of explicit constitutional provisions otherwise is beyond mere ideological hackery, it's fraudulent pseudo-intellectualism being passed by an idiot who cannot be bothered with actually reading on the subject matter in which he speaks.

The rest of it, in which Naugle suggests that everyone who has ever been charged with a crime must have done something to put them in a situation to be accused is just as dangerous and idiotic.  Perhaps Naugle should study the Ohio case of Clarence Elkins who was accused of murder simply based on the fact that his nine-year-niece, and eyewitness, described the assailant as looking like her uncle.  He was wrongfully convicted based on that testimony and was only released when DNA evidence not only exonerated him but identified the true offender.

People get charged with crimes all the time without doing anything out of the ordinary to "put them in that situation."  Perhaps if Naugle actually studied the matter, he'd realize how easily everyday situations can suddenly "put you in that situation."

Go back, Matt, to cyber-fallating the rejected "genius" of Ken Blackwell.  It's clearly all you know, and quit speaking about things of which you have no knowledge about.