alt Hacker NewsI see the issue raised with the process owner being all Executive --but on the other hand due process frequently inadvertently affects non-criminals (i.e. not all suspects are the guilty party in a given case; however many suspects go through a process where they are finally eliminated as a suspect --but that sometimes can carry on for many years as in the Ramsey case and people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing). So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
> people spend tens of thousand and millions while they are under suspicion (i.e. not cleared of wrongdoing)
You managed to hit the nail on the proverbial head... "not cleared of wrongdoing" means "guilty until proven innocent" and turns the promise of the justice system on its head - spending millions to prove innocence is just a mundane consequence of that perversion.
> So due process doesn't guarantee an innocent person is not inadvertently "dragged though mud".
And, not quite accidentally, it allows to drug anyone though mud regardless of guilt - both purposefully or inadvertently.
I've said this before but the type of argument you use is quite common and it boils down to the following fallacy: If something is already happening somewhere, sometimes - it's the right thing to do everywhere and all the time.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the action itself are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.