The Schiavo issue

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

(my comment was also not hyperbole- I was not exaggerating. Check the attitudes about the death penalty- where the process is so deeply flawed as to not be trusted- yet this is? That is not hyperbole- it's a contradiction)

The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.

You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.

I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

The position, at least my position, is that even if the justice system was 99.9% accurate with regards to convictions, the margin of error is still too high and the execution of one innocent person is one too many.

You have spoken out in this thread against the court ordered execution of innocents. Yet, in the Scott Peterson thread, you took the position that if Peterson is actually innocent, then oh well, God will sort it out.

I do not look at your seemingly conflicting stances as being hypocritical. I see them for what they are: Two different opinions on two different subjects.

-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution? I said it was IF the story of her speaking against the ruling was true- the post needs to be taken in context.

If Peterson is guilty, as he was found to be, then I do not object to the death penalty. If he were to get a reversal, but he was in fact guilty, then God can certainly sort it out. If he is innocent, same thing. But I trust the trial process- many others do not.

I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case. In this case they are the grand arbiters saving Terri by allowing Michael to let her live or die and they seem to be viewed in this case as infallible. In death penalty cases they are flawed and too quick to deal death to a possibly innocent person. I don't see how you can trust them in one and not the other- but that's me.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

-so you are saying Terri's death is a court ordered execution?

Not at all.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Not at all.

I didn't think so- but you took my post out of context by removing the linked info I posted with it.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I didn't think so- but you took my post out of context by removing the linked info I posted with it.

Ummm....okay. I certainly didn't mean to take your words out of context and frankly I don't see, in this case, what difference it makes since I wasn't questioning whether Terri wanted to live or not. But you, of course, have a right to your perspective and if you feel I took your words out of context, then I apologize.

Let me try this again for clarity's sake:


If it's true that Terri Schiavo cried out to be saved then you say we are bearing witness to the court ordered execution of an innocent, and you have a problem with that.

If it's true that Scott Peterson is indeed innocent then the courts have ordered the execution of an innocent, and you say ::shrug:: God will sort it out.


Accurate?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I just think the contrast is amazing- on on hand you have people against the death penalty on the chance that the jury/court find wrongly- yet there seems to be no quibble when the court decides on this case.

On the one hand you have the courts upholding the rights of an individual to make a personal decission he has the legal right to make as next-of-kin, on the other you have the state ordering and carrying out an execution. The Schiavo case is a case of deciding that the government should stay the hell out of it, death penalty is a case of government taking final action that I feel they have no right to take.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

But I trust the trial process

How can you say this and yet not trust the 19 (or 23?) courts that have ruled on this already?

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Betty

How can you say this and yet not trust the 19 (or 23?) courts that have ruled on this already?

Note: I have not said a word about the court rulings. Not one- other than if she had spoken against the ruling it was court ordered execution. I also did not support the congressional action. I was the one who said Jeb ought to give it up already- you are ascribing an opinion to me that I don't even have.

I distrust the husband, I think the whole thing is horrid- but nowhere have I said I agreed nor disagreed with the courts. I don't know enough to do so-

I feel for the parents- and I think the whole thing is painful and awful to witness.

Is that clearer?

(side note- I don't think you can assume that using the word lucid was anything more than a poor choice of words- a mistake as it were and not automatically deliberate)

I also see no one is willing to tackle the question I asked above-

[Claire]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

(side note- I don't think you can assume that using the word lucid was anything more than a poor choice of words- a mistake as it were and not automatically deliberate)

And I don't think you can assume it wasn't deliberate.

What question did you ask above? I just scrolled through your last few posts. Thanks.

[SacTown Chronic]

Judging by Mr. DeLay's track record, I'm going with deliberate.