Text 11532, 160 rader
Skriven 2005-04-15 01:27:06 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11488 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, John.

 JH>>>>>>> Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's
 JH>>>>>>> wishes.

 EC>>>>>> You believe that she had in mind when she said those words that
 EC>>>>>> they would be legally binding.  I'd hate to be legally bound by
 EC>>>>>> each idea that I expressed.

 JH>>>>> I doubt that she thought about the legality at all, nor do most
 JH>>>>> people.

 EC>>>> And that is the point.  If her words are to hold weight in a
 EC>>>> legal proceeding, then she should understand that, and if she did
 EC>>>> not, then the words should not have legal weight.

 JH>>> What you are saying is essence is that what you say is meaningless
 JH>>> unless it is put into writing and notarized to make it legally
 JH>>> binding. I don't think that's what you meant to say.

 EC>> Pretty much that is what I meant to say.  Before someone kills me,
 EC>> I'd hope they have more than three or four persons who testify that
 EC>> killing me is my preference.

 JH> Her preference was that she not live in a permanent helpless state, NOT
 JH> that she be murdered.  Regardless of HOW she died, she was NOT murdered
 JH> under the law.

I have never used the word murder in regard to this case.

 EC>>>>>> Her life is more important than the casual interpretation and
 EC>>>>>> motivation of her dinner guests.

 JH> To the best of my knowledge from what I've read, she wasn't there
 JH> anymore, Ed. It was just an empty shell of flesh.

Then if she lived she would not know it?

 JH>>>>> I wouldn't call the first hand testimony of three people casual
 JH>>>>> interpretation,

 EC>>>> They can testify as to what they heard, but not what she thought.

 JH>>> Absent any testimony from anybody to the contrary, that IS what
 JH>>> she thought.  That's the way our legal system is set up.

 EC>> In essence, she is testifying at the hearing.  When they say, I
 EC>> heard her say thus and so, the court is then considering her words as
 EC>> her testimony. Note however that those who give testimony must be
 EC>> subject to cross-examination.  She could not be so cross-examined, so
 EC>> her testimony is inadmissable.

 JH> No, the cross is only to make sure that the witness is accurately
 JH> testifying to what she said.  It doesn't negate HER words at all, or
 JH> her wishes.  HER wishes and words ARE admissable when the witness is
 JH> considered credible, and the cross exam is for the purpose of
 JH> determining that credibility of the witness, nothing more.

I don't think so.  Cross can also bring out facts that were known, but not 
mentioned.  For example, under cross,
one could ask her, do you want to die even if that means that you will die 
of thirst?

 JH>>> ==================== clipped

 EC>>>>>>>> True.  At least a written will is done on purpose with the
 EC>>>>>>>> intent that it will speak for you at some subsequent date.
 EC>>>>>>>> If one changes one's mind, one can modify the words on the
 EC>>>>>>>> paper too and one knows where and what to change.  Her
 EC>>>>>>>> comments to these third parties were considered binding by
 EC>>>>>>>> her, do you think?

 JH>>>>>>> Oh, come on, Ed.  How many times have relatives hauled kin
 JH>>>>>>> into court to contest a clearly written and specific will when
 JH>>>>>>> they didn't get what they wanted from the deceased?  It happens
 JH>>>>>>> all the time.

 EC>>>>>> That is another question.  The issue is were her words binding
 EC>>>>>> upon her legally, and did she have that intention when she said
 EC>>>>>> them? Did she then continue her life with the belief that this
 EC>>>>>> one possible future issue for her was settled by her
 EC>>>>>> conversation. If not, then if she wanted something else, she
 EC>>>>>> didn't know that she had to look up these persons and give them
 EC>>>>>> the new info.

 JH>>>>> Are you prepared to undermine the entire judicial system?

 EC>>>> I am prepared to change the law.

 JH>>>>>  Because there are a whole lot of people in prison right now
 JH>>>>> convicted on what they said and what was testified to by first
 JH>>>>> hand witnesses. If that can now be second guessed, and ignored
 JH>>>>> then all those people should be let out of prison.

 EC>>>> But these witnesses cannot testify as to her wishes.  Only to
 EC>>>> what words they heard, and if she didn't consider those words as
 EC>>>> having legal significance, no legal weight can rightly be placed
 EC>>>> upon them.

 JH> Her wishes and her words are the same thing from a legal standpoint.

They are?  Why?  They are not the same thing in reality.

 JH>>> And it is equally true that she may have considered what she said
 JH>>> to be legal. Assuming either way is delving into the unknown.  We
 JH>>> only have what she was heard to say, and that is what the decision
 JH>>> MUST be based on in order for the law to be impartial.

 EC>> And you are willing for them to kill her based on the unknown?
 EC>> The fact that we are limited in our knowledge as you point out is no
 EC>> excuse to just take a guess.

 EC>>>>>> I am questioning the validity of this law in condemning a
 EC>>>>>> United States citizen to death.  These are issues that should
 EC>>>>>> have been looked at by federal judges while they were doing the
 EC>>>>>> more important thing - giving the finger to the president, to
 EC>>>>>> congress, and to the people.

 JH>>> The law didn't condemn her.  The law is only as good as the men
 JH>>> who wrote it. If its wrong, then it should be changed.

 EC>> I'm for that.

 JH>>>>> Was this case handled poorly from the start?  You bet.  Is
 JH>>>>> Michael a jerk or worse?  Without a doubt.  Did her parents have
 JH>>>>> a legal leg to stand on?  The courts said no for nearly 15 years.
 JH>>>>> The media blew this all out of proportion, and both sides handled
 JH>>>>> it badly, but the bottom line is that the law was followed.  Now,
 JH>>>>> I think its a good thing that people are upset, because maybe
 JH>>>>> now there will be enough impetus to rethink and revise the law so
 JH>>>>>  that it is more flexible.  Without the law, however, we would
 JH>>>>> have anarchy, and this case is just a tiny example of how it
 JH>>>>> would start.

 EC>>>> I don't see how we would have any more anarchy if that woman were
 EC>>>> alive today.

 JH>>> Tyranny or anarchy - both start the same way - by ignoring the
 JH>>> law, by passing bad laws, and by standing by and doing nothing to
 JH>>> correct such abuse.  It starts little by little, here and there,
 JH>>> until all of a sudden there's an 800 lb. gorilla tearing up the
 JH>>> house, and no way to stop it.

 EC>> So this woman was killed to uphold this principle?  I'm still not
 EC>> sure how the nation would be harmed if this woman were still alive.

 JH> We, and our leaders, make a big deal all the time about this country
 JH> being a country that follows the rule of law.  You either do that or
 JH> you don't, you can't have it both ways when something distasteful and
 JH> ugly happens.  You either follow the law as it exists and then change
 JH> it, or you don't, at which point you have introduced potential anarchy
 JH> (or tyranny) into the mix.

 JH> I prefer to follow the rule of law, as painful as it can be at times.

I prefer justice tempered with mercy.


--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)