[Jeff Head]

No, actually the burden of proof in any death penalty cases is set at "beyond a reasonable doubt". If that standard had been applied here, Terri would be alive.

So, from that perspective, clearly I feel exactly the same about any death penmalty case...if there is doubt, you cannot convict. Therefore your assertion about me is false. If there is no reasonable doubt about a heinious killer or criminal, that you should convict. That is the law and it is a good one.

As rtegards life in geenral, my feeling is that innocent life must be preserved at all costs. Terri was innocent, the unborn are innocent.

[k2blader]

I wonder why certain people refuse to grant reasonable doubt in the case of murdering Terri?

[Future Useless Eater]

>>No, actually the burden of proof in any death penalty cases is set at "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I think that was Jim Robinson's point too... and I agree...

"The last I heard, in this country when you are on trial for your life, if there is one doubtful juror, you don't receive a death sentence."

>>pro-INNOCENT life.

dittos, beezdotcom