Text 11568, 201 rader
Skriven 2005-04-15 09:47:23 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Kommentar till text 11532 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
15 Apr 05 01:27, Ed Connell wrote to John Hull:
EC> 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
EC>>>>>>> that they would be legally binding. I'd hate to be legally
EC>>>>>>> bound by each idea that I expressed.
JH>>>>>> I doubt that she thought about the legality at all, nor do
JH>>>>>> most 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
EC>>>>> did not, then the words should not have legal weight.
JH>>>> What you are saying is essence is that what you say is
JH>>>> meaningless unless it is put into writing and notarized to make
JH>>>> it legally 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
EC>>> me, I'd hope they have more than three or four persons who testify
EC>>> that killing me is my preference.
JH>> Her preference was that she not live in a permanent helpless
JH>> state, NOT that she be murdered. Regardless of HOW she died, she
JH>> was NOT murdered under the law.
EC> I have never used the word murder in regard to this case.
I know that, but some others have, and I wanted to make sure that where I was
coming from was clearly understood.
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.
EC> Then if she lived she would not know it?
I do not believe that the person known as Terri Schiavo - her persona, her
likes and dislikes, her essence - was any longer there. Her "soul" if you wish
to use that term was long since gone to wherever souls go. The body left
behind was running on autopilot via the autonomic nervous system - the brain
stem, the most primitive part of the brain - and any responses that came from
the body were instinctual. Even a parmecium will react if stimulated, but I
don't think anyone would argue that it was sentient.
JH>>>>>> I wouldn't call the first hand testimony of three people
JH>>>>>> casual interpretation,
EC>>>>> They can testify as to what they heard, but not what she
EC>>>>> 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
EC>>> words as her testimony. Note however that those who give testimony
EC>>> must be subject to cross-examination. She could not be so
EC>>> cross-examined, so 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,
JH>> or her wishes. HER wishes and words ARE admissable when the
JH>> witness is considered credible, and the cross exam is for the
JH>> purpose of determining that credibility of the witness, nothing
JH>> more.
EC> I don't think so. Cross can also bring out facts that were known,
EC> but not mentioned. For example, under cross, one could ask her, do you
EC> want to die even if that means that you will die of thirst?
Such hypotheticals, in this case, are moot, since there was virtually no
possibility that she could ever reply. Bringing up such scenarios is
pointless.
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
JH>>>>>>>> when they didn't get what they wanted from the deceased? It
JH>>>>>>>> happens all the time.
EC>>>>>>> That is another question. The issue is were her words
EC>>>>>>> binding upon her legally, and did she have that intention when
EC>>>>>>> she said them? Did she then continue her life with the belief
EC>>>>>>> that this one possible future issue for her was settled by
EC>>>>>>> her conversation. If not, then if she wanted something else,
EC>>>>>>> she didn't know that she had to look up these persons and give
EC>>>>>>> them 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
EC>>>>> as having legal significance, no legal weight can rightly be
EC>>>>> placed upon them.
JH>> Her wishes and her words are the same thing from a legal
JH>> standpoint.
EC> They are? Why? They are not the same thing in reality.
You can't ask her what her wishes might have been. She's dead, and before she
was incapable of a cognitive answer. All we have, and all we've EVER had has
been her words as testified to by those three friends.
JH>>>> And it is equally true that she may have considered what she
JH>>>> said to be legal. Assuming either way is delving into the
JH>>>> unknown. We only have what she was heard to say, and that is
JH>>>> what the decision MUST be based on in order for the law to be
JH>>>> 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
EC>>> no 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
EC>>>>>>> the more important thing - giving the finger to the president,
EC>>>>>>> to 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
JH>>>>>> have a legal leg to stand on? The courts said no for nearly 15
JH>>>>>> years. The media blew this all out of proportion, and both
JH>>>>>> sides handled it badly, but the bottom line is that the law was
JH>>>>>> followed. Now, I think its a good thing that people are upset,
JH>>>>>> because maybe now there will be enough impetus to rethink and
JH>>>>>> revise the law so that it is more flexible. Without the law,
JH>>>>>> however, we would have anarchy, and this case is just a tiny
JH>>>>>> example of how it would start.
EC>>>>> I don't see how we would have any more anarchy if that woman
EC>>>>> were 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
JH>>>> to correct such abuse. It starts little by little, here and
JH>>>> there, until all of a sudden there's an 800 lb. gorilla tearing
JH>>>> up the 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
EC>>> alive.
It doesn't hinge on this one case, and never has. It hinges on every case that
comes up.
JH>> We, and our leaders, make a big deal all the time about this
JH>> country being a country that follows the rule of law. You either
JH>> do that or you don't, you can't have it both ways when something
JH>> distasteful and ugly happens. You either follow the law as it
JH>> exists and then change it, or you don't, at which point you have
JH>> introduced potential anarchy (or tyranny) into the mix.
JH>> I prefer to follow the rule of law, as painful as it can be at
JH>> times.
EC> I prefer justice tempered with mercy.
That's fine. I have no problem with that at all. However, in order to extend
mercy, one must have the power to do so. In this case, no matter who was doing
the extending, it wouldn't have worked, because neither side would give an inch
to let it. In any case, the mercy would've been for the parents and not Terri.
Terri, mercifully, had long since left that shell of flesh. In my opinion, of
course.
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: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)
|