The judge had "clear and convincing" evidence as to her wishes. You have a problem with our legal system? You'd be happier with a poll?
Who will resolve your question? Someone must make a decision. Who?
"whether or not Michael Schiavo merely said that Terri expressed a desire for her own death"
And he convinced two others to lie under oath with him and risk being charged with perjury. Why would they do that? Would you?
Yes, I do have a problem with our legal system. It has been overrun with "activist judges", who are hard left ideologues, and believe that "the end justifies the means". I certainly am not painting all judges with that brush ... it appears to be a generational thing, and the ones I deplore tend to be younger ones who came out of law schools after, say, about 1975 [after the hard left had infiltrated the law schools and were teaching bad [hard left] ideology in them.And he convinced two others to lie under oath with him and risk being charged with perjury. Why would they do that?How closely have you observed the legal system over the past forty years? If you had, and if you were objective, you would understand what I am saying.
Regrettably, many of today's judges are not capable of being objective. Tragically, "clear and convincing" to many judges today means ... as it does for people like Michael Schiavo ... and, perhaps, you as well ... what they want to believe to produce the outcome they desire.
Judicial Activism is a reality of our time. It is "outcome based" ... just as surely as Outcome Based Education is ... and, it starts with a desired concept and proceeds toward that end.
Moral relativsm has been taught in the public schools for decades and often, with a large dose of secular humanism is taught in lieu of religion in the churches of today, as well.Would you?Tragically, there are a couple of generations of people who have no clearcut concept of good/bad, evil/divine, right/wrong ... all of their values are relative and mutable ... unless they have learned their values elsewhere ... usually at home.
False witnesses are procured all the time. Some have been convinced by someone to say something false while believing it to be true ... or, sometimes, they simply want to do a friend a favor ... or, for some unknown reason, someone testified under oath to a Congressonal committee the other day that she saw someone blow up the levee in N.O.... and, sometimes, testimoney is simply bought and paid for. It happens all the time.
Perjury charges are seldom brought. There is not much risk there.
No, I would not. Regardless of the outcome, or detriment I might incur, I would not lie under oath.
I agree with you totally. Michael was probably the hero in all of this. Every day families are confronted with agonizing decisions like the one he made, but thankfully most are able to make those decisions in private.
A poll of twelve impartial people, as is used in other cases when the state orders someone's death? Sounds like how the legal system is supposed to work, actually.
Given that the law at the time of Terri's statements didn't allow removal of food and water under any circumstances where they would provide necessary and sufficient sustenance, one would have to attribute remarkable clairvoyance to Terri to believe she'd expressed a desire to be dehydrated in the event that it should become legal.
It would be much more likely that if Terri did make the alleged statements, she was referring to what would have been considered "life support" at the time she made them, e.g. heart-lung machines, ventilators, etc.
Of course, there's also a very real possibility that Michael and his relatives (they were not Terri's relatives except via her marriage to Michael) just made the whole thing up. Too bad a jury didn't get to see them.