Text 11543, 102 rader
Skriven 2005-04-15 06:40:14 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11531 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
15 Apr 05 01:15, Ed Connell wrote to John Hull:

 EC> Hey, John.

 EC>>>>> And if she did change her mind without telling anyone?

 JH>>>> Come on, Ed.  Have to agree with Earl here.  Formality has 
 JH>>>> nothing to do with it.  If you had expressed your opinion on a 
 JH>>>> subject (or your wishes concerning something) on numerous 
 JH>>>> occasions to a number of different people, any reasonable person 
 JH>>>> would conclude that your opinion was pretty well set (or that 
 JH>>>> your wish was firm).

 EC>>> Legal events are formal.  That is why those who testify must
 EC>>> promise to tell the truth.  That is why certain issues are 
 EC>>> allowed and others not.  Form and law go hand in hand.  If a law 
 EC>>> is not formal enough it will be thrown out as too vague.  Pretty 
 EC>>> well set doesn't get it for me when it comes to killing someone.

 JH>> Telling the truth is a given in ANY court, regardless of the 
 JH>> subject matter, civil or criminal.

 EC> In all the courts with which I am familiar, a person giving 
 EC> testimony first promises to tell not only the truth, but the whole 
 EC> truth.

You made a comment concerning the formality of events in relation to the
court's likelihood to consider it truthful - at least that's the way it sounded
to me - and I said it doesn't change the facts (the reality) of what they are
testifying about.  They either tell the truth or they don't, and the judge and
jury have to evaluate their veractiy accordingly.  No formality involved. (This
should be down below your next statement, btw.)

 JH>>  It doesn't change the reality of what someone says or does as I
 JH>> outlined above.

 EC> I'm not sure what you are saying.  Rather, I have no clue.

 JH>>>>   *I* would certainly take it that way.  Now, many of us have 
 JH>>>> also written our wishes down as a backup, just in case.  But that 
 JH>>>> in no way lessens the validity of what we said verbally on many
 JH>>>> occasions, and I would expect the courts to honor that,
 JH>>>> particularly if there were several first hand witnesses to 
 JH>>>> attest to that fact.

 EC> What if I say, "I'd rather die than eat spinach"?  Now I like 
 EC> spinach, so I'm okay, but, just suppose I said that.

 EC>>> I'm sorry, but I just don't approve of killing anyone on the 
 EC>>> basis of such informal conversation.

I, or a judge or jury, etc., would evaluate that statement in the context in
which it was made to see if it was relevant or not.  If it is, then the truth
of it is also relevant.

 JH>> What's informal about it?

 EC> By definition, it was not formal.

 JH>> You have to remember here that most people don't know that they 
 JH>> should write certain things down and in some cases even have then 
 JH>> notarized. You can't get any more formal than that to use your 
 JH>> definition of formal, yet sometimes even that is not enough.

 EC> I cannot see that someone's ignoring formal declarations is an 
 EC> argument for accepting less formal speech.

 JH>> Sorry, but someone's word should carry as much or more weight than 
 JH>> some document, especially if there are witnesses who verify that 
 JH>> word.  It used to be that way.  An agreement was sealed with a 
 JH>> handshake, and both parties kept their word because it was not only 
 JH>> the right thing to do, it was the moral thing to do.

 EC> The handshake is a formality.  It formalizes the agreement.

But it wasn't needed to make the agreement binding.  That only requires the
acquiesence of both parties - the willingness to abide by one's word.

 JH>> I fully agree that Schiavo may not have realized that her wishes 
 JH>> would entail starving, but that isn't the point here.

 EC> When is it the point, because that is exactly what happened to 
 EC> her?

It isn't the point because it never came up.  Nobody ever asked her that, and
she never mentioned it.  All we have to go on is what she DID say, and the fact
that what she said was credible in the context in which she said it, and that
there are first hand witnesses to attest to that.

I understand your anquish and anger, Ed, over this whole thing, but the law is
the law.  Its impartial, and imperfect, but that's what we've agreed to live
by, so we have no choice but to follow it even when it is painful.  We can,
however, make changes as needed, though it is often after the fact of some
tragedy, as in this case.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)