Tie--Dies: Judge Calls Terri Schiavo "Out"
When I was younger and played softball it was a rule of thumb that "tie base goes to the runner." The idea is that it's harder to get a hit than to make an out so the more difficult of the two gets the nod.
With Terri Schiavo, however, the judge handling her case seems to feel that a "tied case goes to the grave." As I ponder the evidence in this case it is not clear whether Terri is conscious or not. Tie. It is not clear whether she expressed a desire to not be subject to life support. Tie. It is not clear whether she would have been able to respond to rehab treatment. Tie. It is not clear that she is subject to life termination under the law. Tie. And, it is not clear whether her brain damage was from a natural cause or from a physical assault (ie. choking). Tie.
So far as I can see there is no overwhelming case for either side...especially when so many of the questions cannot be answered because normal and acceptable medical care has not been provided for Terri by her husband.
So it is up to the umpire--oops, I mean judge--to make the call. He can choose to either let her live or to allow her to be killed. The husband wants her dead and her family wants her to live. Another Tie.
It seems not only reasonable but compulsory under these circumstances for the judge to rule for life. It is easy to kill someone. It is more difficult to give them life. Life, once taken, cannot be restored. Life, once given, can still be taken at a later time if circumstances become clearer in the future.
If it was not very clear that the overwhelming evidence in a capital murder conviction proved the defendant guilty would a judge issue a death penalty? Certainly not. Conviction by a jury requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a sentence of death normally must exceed even that requirement.
Terri Schiavo's circumstance does not qualify for even the simplest level of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The saddest part of all this is that the judge has never seen the "play" and has refused to even review it. Although urged to go by Terri's family, he has never gone to visit Terri and see for himself what her condition is, nor has he ever allowed her to be present in the courtroom where he is passing judgment on whether she will live or die.
I feel as if the judge was making his calls from a different rule book than everyone else.
When a baseball game is over the losing coach can raise a protest flag so that the reason for the protest can be reviewed.
When Terri's feeding tube is pulled next Wednesday millions of her supporters will join her family in raising the protest flag one last time. But this time, when it comes time for the review, the game will be over for Terri.
In the Olympics, when a competition ends in a tie, both participants are declared to have won and each receives a gold medal. It does not look as though Terri will be getting a gold medal from the judge next week.
With Terri Schiavo, however, the judge handling her case seems to feel that a "tied case goes to the grave." As I ponder the evidence in this case it is not clear whether Terri is conscious or not. Tie. It is not clear whether she expressed a desire to not be subject to life support. Tie. It is not clear whether she would have been able to respond to rehab treatment. Tie. It is not clear that she is subject to life termination under the law. Tie. And, it is not clear whether her brain damage was from a natural cause or from a physical assault (ie. choking). Tie.
So far as I can see there is no overwhelming case for either side...especially when so many of the questions cannot be answered because normal and acceptable medical care has not been provided for Terri by her husband.
So it is up to the umpire--oops, I mean judge--to make the call. He can choose to either let her live or to allow her to be killed. The husband wants her dead and her family wants her to live. Another Tie.
It seems not only reasonable but compulsory under these circumstances for the judge to rule for life. It is easy to kill someone. It is more difficult to give them life. Life, once taken, cannot be restored. Life, once given, can still be taken at a later time if circumstances become clearer in the future.
If it was not very clear that the overwhelming evidence in a capital murder conviction proved the defendant guilty would a judge issue a death penalty? Certainly not. Conviction by a jury requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" and a sentence of death normally must exceed even that requirement.
Terri Schiavo's circumstance does not qualify for even the simplest level of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The saddest part of all this is that the judge has never seen the "play" and has refused to even review it. Although urged to go by Terri's family, he has never gone to visit Terri and see for himself what her condition is, nor has he ever allowed her to be present in the courtroom where he is passing judgment on whether she will live or die.
I feel as if the judge was making his calls from a different rule book than everyone else.
When a baseball game is over the losing coach can raise a protest flag so that the reason for the protest can be reviewed.
When Terri's feeding tube is pulled next Wednesday millions of her supporters will join her family in raising the protest flag one last time. But this time, when it comes time for the review, the game will be over for Terri.
In the Olympics, when a competition ends in a tie, both participants are declared to have won and each receives a gold medal. It does not look as though Terri will be getting a gold medal from the judge next week.
<< Home