Has your faith in the Judicial System been shaken?

[Sishir Chang]

I'm bringing this up because a lot of the debate about the Terry Schiavo situation has revolved around the falliability of the courts. The proponents of keeping Terry Schiavo alive have used such phrases as "the courts need to err on the side of life," "that the courts always make mistakes" and "that every opportunity must be given.." On the other hand the side for removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube have talked about the fulfillment of due process and also criticised the extraordinary amount of appeals in this case.

When it comes to the death penalty though these arguments are reversed with the many of the most ardent proponents for keeping Terry Schiavo alive using the exact same language as those on the other side to support executing people. GW Bush and Jeb Bush have almost word for word said the same thing as Judge Greer when turning down a request for clemency on for an execution. "Due process has been met and the Constitution doesn't prevent the denial of life when due process has been met." Further the proponents of the death penalty often complain about the amount of appeals that death penalty cases go through and have rallied against courts who have stayed death penalties.

So on one hand they consider the courts to be infalliable when it comes to the denial of life and complain that the process is too long while in the Schiavo case the courts are completely falliable and the process isn't long enough even though its the same justice system.

I'm also asking those on the side for removing Terry Schiavo's feeding tube but are against the death penalty if your faith in the Justice system is strengthened?

[StupidMoniker]

I'm one of the people that is against the death penalty but in favor of turning Shiavo over to her parents. I don't think we should take chances with other people's lives, especially when it is not to serve a greater good. I don't have much faith in the judicial system because it is made to serve law, not necessarily to serve good. This case does nothing to change that view.

[RocketMan Tex]

I never had much faith in the judicial system, and have had even less since December 2000.

[Sishir Chang]

Have any of the people for keeping Terry Schiavo alive responded?

[HayesStreet]

I have more faith in the courts than the Congress or the Presidency.

[NJRocket]

For the most part, my faith in the judicial system went out the window when OJ got acquitted. Nothing shocks me anymore

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by NJRocket
For the most part, my faith in the judicial system went out the window when OJ got acquitted. Nothing shocks me anymore

Hell, if that's the case, I lost my faith in the courts after Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were convicted and condemned, and I wasn't even born yet!!

[Deckard]

This affair has had no affect on my opinion of the Judicial System one way or the other. I know others disagree, but I still believe that this was a family conflict used by politicians and the media for attention, political gain, and ratings. Frankly, there are far more important things for me to get worked up about.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[bnb]

Originally posted by Deckard
This affair has had no affect on my opinion of the Judicial System one way or the other. I know others disagree, but I still believe that this was a family conflict used by politicians and the media for attention, political gain, and ratings. Frankly, there are far more important things for me to get worked up about.



Keep D&D Civil!!

well said....

[pirc1]

This is the problem I have with US media. Do they really need to cover this story 24/7 for the last few months? There are far more important things for the news media to cover both inside the US and around the world.

[Sishir Chang]

So far only one person has voted that there faith in the Judicial system has been shaken even though several have argued that the Judicial system was mistaken in this case.

[nyquil82]

In the past, courts would likely turn hot topic cases away on the basis that the arguments were based on subjective morality which could not be defined by law. These days, as politics is becoming a larger part of the culture and there is this general need that everyone wants to get their opinion out, the courts have been more willing to take these cases. changing culture and the focus of controversial issues instead of other important ones is a big factor in this happening.

i have issues with courts making such almost-permanent decisions that generally, we are still too unsure about to really make a valid conclusion. sometimes we have to wait before trying to close a lid on something.

[MadMax]

Originally posted by nyquil82
In the past, courts would likely turn hot topic cases away on the basis that the arguments were based on subjective morality which could not be defined by law. These days, as politics is becoming a larger part of the culture and there is this general need that everyone wants to get their opinion out, the courts have been more willing to take these cases. changing culture and the focus of controversial issues instead of other important ones is a big factor in this happening.

i have issues with courts making such almost-permanent decisions that generally, we are still too unsure about to really make a valid conclusion. sometimes we have to wait before trying to close a lid on something.

Wait, what? the Supreme Court did not choose to hear this case.

The courts dealt with this issue because it was brought before them. Where else would you have these people settle their differences??? In the streets?? At the bike racks after school?

Courts don't choose what cases are filed. They don't have the privilige of doing that or denying people a day in court. The appeals courts that heard the cases all agreed with the trial court's decision, as I understand it.

As an aside...these are issues that have HUGE legal implications. Particularly related to who has the right to say pull the plug if I haven't left specific instructions.

What permanent decisions were made here? These issues are very fact-specific and change from case to case related to different evidence. I'm not entirely certain that every state court system would have rendered the same judgment that Florida's courts did.

[nyquil82]

1. Correct
2. Did the case have to go as far in the courts as it did? to say that the only other way to deal with it is self-help is not a valid argument.
3. Courts don't choose, but they decide how to deal with it, in the past it was more common that they left things open or rejected the case entirely.
4. I can't answer the last two, they contradict. and I didn't say permanent.

[MadMax]

The only reason it kept proceeding in the courts is because the petitioners (family) kept filing appeals and requests for rehearing. It really didn't "progress" much further.

Left things open?? You think it's a good thing for a court to not make a ruling??? When they don't do that, lawyers seek mandamus from a higher court to get them to make a ruling. That's their job. They make rulings. Sometimes those rulings are, "get the frick out of here." That's what happened here. But the family was dealing with their opinions on the death of their daughter, so they weren't deterred. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say they previously left things open or didn't take a case.

No contradiction...this particular case, with its facts, warranted consideration from the bench. Two different sets of family members arguing facts about who should be making this decision. Those sorts of disputes about those issues and lesser issues happen all the time. Applications for guardianship are filed and contested among family members...how much more so the right to pull the plug without a living will instructing??? As best I can tell, there is no national standard set with this case. The Florida standard would likely be limited only to cases in the exact same fact scenario. Good luck finding one exactly like this. Another reason why the Supreme Court didn't deal with it.

[Joe Joe]

No. I've really lost a lot of respect for Americans and the media lately. This is a very personal matter that was treated with very little respect for one's privacy by the people that should care for her the most.