To: Bella_Bru; Scenic Sounds
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.
235 posted on
04/06/2005 8:13:10 PM PDT by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: Jeff Head
I wonder why certain people refuse to grant reasonable doubt in the case of murdering Terri?
237 posted on
04/07/2005 12:57:11 AM PDT by
k2blader
(If suicide is immoral, then helping it happen, regardless of motivation, is also immoral.)
To: Jeff Head; k2blader; beezdotcom; pc93; freepertoo; nicmarlo
>>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
238 posted on
04/07/2005 3:55:48 AM PDT by
Future Useless Eater
(FreedomLoving_Engineer) (It was wrong to kill her. No other "facts" matter.-JimRobinson)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson