Changing My Mind On Terry

I've realized some difficulties with my previous position on the Terry Schiavo case. In spirit, I believe she should live. But if I am to be consistent in my thinking as regards public policy, I'm afraid I have to accept her seemingly pending death as a matter of law. My thinking has pointed out to me not only my hypocrisy on the issue, but that of President Bush as well. And I am staunch Bush supporter, as anyone who knows or reads me realizes.

In a post here, I lauded President Bush for feeling as I did, "if we must err, let it be on the side of life". Unfortunately, that argument creates as many problems for me as it would resolve in this instance because it is precisely the argument of the Left when it comes to the death penalty. And while they may be comfortable with a hypocritical position that would deny life to Terry Schiavo, yet grant it to the perpetrators of capital crimes, I don't want to feel an inverse hypocrisy the next time I rant about how we don't use the death penalty quickly or often enough to make it a genuine deterrent.

Also, for anyone interested here is a link to a post at Football Fans for Truth that was provided by fellow blogger Chrys in email. It's worth a look for a different take on a case of which I can't begin to know all the details.

While my position is altered, that isn't to say that I want Terry to die. If Michael Schiavo is anything like a decent man, one of two things has to be true - either he does know for fact that Terry wouldn't want to exist as she is, or he would relinquish custody to her parents. Frankly, I don't know if either of the above is true, or if Mr. Schiavo is in fact either not a decent man, or a good man beaten down after years of difficulty resulting from Terry's condition. And given that the Schindler family is now seeming to get a bit outlandish with claims that just six days ago Terry "said" she wanted to live, the muddy waters around this issue grow even thicker and darker.

I simply can't embrace the death penalty while knowing all human endeavor is subject to error, yet claim the high ground of always err on the side of life in the Schiavo case. So, I conclude, always err on the side of justice, and I am unable to conclude from the facts known to me what is truly just for Terry.

This post also available at Blogger News.

Comments

[James]

"No one knows anything about [Michael Schiavo] relationship with his wife..."

You might wish to take a look at http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/02/_2004_psychiatr.html before asserting that.

[jeff]

Well said. The hatred directed at Michael Schiavo is a profound manifestation of the Religious Right morphing into the Angry Left. No one knows anything about his relationship with his wife, his feelings around the fact that his 'wife' no longer existed after a certain point, the efforts he made to help her, or the process he went thru in accepting that the woman he married was gone & not coming back.

[John Link]

I would like to hear someone comment on the position
Andrew McCarthy takes vis a vis the Due Process argument. See his comments here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200503250823.asp

It seems to me that he makes a strong case for applying the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria in this case, as the federal courts do with convicted criminals facing execution. Would you, or any of your correspondents, like to tell us why you think a LESSER standard should apply to Schiavo, who committed no crime, but is nonetheless being killed, albeit passively, by a court order that she not be given food and water?

Sure, I understand the position that she is in a "persistent vegetative state", but....has that been established beyond a reasonable doubt? If so, WHEN? Based on what evidence? How recently?

And even with all the exceptions to the hearsay rule, anyone wanna tell me that the the claims about what Schiavo said about not wanting to be on a machine have to do with (a) her NOT being "on a machine", as she never was, and (b) how her supposed comments are anything BUT pure hearsay, which is " non-judicial statements offered into evidence to prove the matter asserted therein".

Methinks the failure of the federal courts to look "de novo" at the possibility of federal claims of 5th and 14th Amendment Due Process being denied to Schiavo will turn out to haunt the judicial system. If the courts want to throw the gauntlet down vs. the legislative branch they have picked a piss-poor case to offer as a challenge.

Procedural due process, we've got plenty. Substantive due process, not a whit.

[Dorothy Tarantino]

My point of view is so different. I do not see removing Terri's feeding tube as "killing her", but as allowing her to die. I believe she actually did die 15 years ago, but doctors "brought back" her body, but not her mind, which leaves her "brain dead'. Then they inserted that feeding tube which has kept her body existing (I don't call that living), in a vegetative state. That, I believe, is the REAL cruelty, and it should be allowed to end. We seem to make a big fuss about not interfering with God's will when it comes to the beginning of life, but not at all at the end.

[DC]

Dan,

Your ol' pal DC here. As you know, I loved the prior post. I do understand the conflict, and the late claims by the Schindlers do muddy the waters. And, I will say that I don't think Terri will get better.

To me, though, this is not the issue. Terri is, as William Oliver said, innocent. And ... there is a lot of doubt as to her wishes. And Michael has a new woman and kids and he's still driving the train? Just not right. As such, this is what I think it properly means to err on the side of life.

Plus, the Congress passed a law with the clear intent of a fresh look, a de novo review, and the judges all just seemed to cover for each other, save for a couple of brave souls. This is what lawyers tend to do. I think the supremacy of the judiciary that has arisen in America is going to take down the "rule of law", if we are not careful. As much benefit of the doubt as the guilty get, what would it have hurt to have a federal court ... how about a jury? ... review all of the evidence?

[William Oliver]

"And I am resigned to following the law."

The same question exists, however. At what point will one no longer be "resigned?" How many innocent deaths does it take in order to overcome that resignation that the law must be followed, no matter how many atrocities it results in?

Certainly our founding fathers did not feel this way. Indeed, the phrase "If this be treason, then let's make the most of it" comes to mind.

What is the line between a good American and a "good German?" How many innocent deaths does it take?

billo

[eduardo]

Whoops. That was meant to say, "I just read recently that there is a new study saying..."

[Mr. Snitch!]

Dead-on Dan. The law exists as a distillation of arguments and persuasion and arm-twisting. It's good, it's bad, it's indifferent. When it's something other than good, it should be changed, and usually it takes a significant event to cause that. What you don't do is override it when you don't like it (except when you break it deliberately to make a point - not the case here). Overriding our laws (and that's what they are - ours) devalues all law, good and otherwise. And as much as I enjoy watching Deadwood, I'm not so sure I'd want to live in it.

[eduardo]

I just read recently that there is a new penalty saying the Death Penalty has a deterrent effect in states where there have been enough deaths to register on the public. Here is the listing, where it is available as a PDF download.

This changes the weight of the argumentation for death penalty cases. Because it has been consistently argued in the recent past that the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

Myself, I'm only in favor of death penalty in limited cases that include when there is DNA evidence to prove the crime and more than one murder, or in the case of a particularly gruesome murder.

So I am already weighting death penalty towards life in my mind.

And Terri Schiavo is not guilty of anything.

[Dan]

William - "What really matters is state's rights, and that the federal government should not step in to stop an atrocity if that atrocity has the imprimateur of a local government -- and all "real" conservatives should feel that way else they are being inconsistent."

That's not my position. I'd refer you to two recent posts of mine - http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2005/03/ideology_absent.html and http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2005/03/the_schiavo_cha.html

I had no problem with the Congressional intervention and I would have no problem with a state or federal law that said without a living will and uncontested guardianship, the individual should be kept alive until the matter is resolved at the highest level. In fact, I would also like to see a federal law that mandated a thorough but timely review of capital cases that resulted in executions being conducted within one year of conviction. But neither law exists. And I am resigned to following the law. That doesn't mean that I deem it adequate and wouldn't welcome a change.

[William Oliver]

I've asked this question of a couple of folks who are singing the "well it's too bad we have to kill an innocent, but you know the law's the law" song, so I'll ask you, too. The principle you are espousing, as I see it, is that it doesn't really matter whether or not the killing of Ms. Schiavo constitutes torture, and it doesn't really matter whether or not she is an innocent being killed. What really matters is state's rights, and that the federal government should not step in to stop an atrocity if that atrocity has the imprimateur of a local government -- and all "real" conservatives should feel that way else they are being inconsistent.

OK. Well, if one such death is not enough, then how many? Would the killing of 10 innocents be enough? What about 1000? What about a million, or six? Is there no level of atrocity that a "real" conservative will not oppose, even if it means the federal government should step in?

I'll posit that "real" conservatives are, in fact, not necessarily literal legalists, who accept atrocity in the name of law. The last I saw, "real" conservatives believed in a natural law that opposed such atrocities, and if a legal system supported atrocity, then that showed a flaw in the legal system that must be opposed, not a flaw in their conservatism.

billo