Patterico's Pontifications

3/22/2005

Not Even If It Was Twenty Years . . .

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Schiavo — Patterico @ 8:41 pm



A story in the L.A. Times today has this line:

In this case, lawyers for the parents of Terri Schiavo say their daughter has been denied her right to due process of law, despite nearly seven years of litigation in the Florida courts.

Can you imagine a story in this newspaper about a death penalty case in California that said:

In this case, lawyers for the defendant say their client has been denied his right to due process of law, despite nearly seven years of litigation in the California courts.

I didn’t think so.

11 Responses to “Not Even If It Was Twenty Years . . .”

  1. Why the constant comparisons to the death penalty? aren’t those procedures completely different?

    actus (e8ffe9) — 3/22/2005 @ 10:21 pm

  2. No. The law that congress did is, essentially, habeas corpus review for Terri Schiavo, which works the same way as any other lawsuit.

    The comparison is apt because not only is the result the same, but so are the court procedures (the substantive law, obviously, is different).

    The Angry Clam (c96486) — 3/22/2005 @ 10:55 pm

  3. Actus, in case you’re not being deliberatly ironic, removing Schiavo’s feeding tube is a measure taken EXPLICITLY to cause her death. That’s why the death penalty analogies are relevant.

    SaveFarris (94e2bf) — 3/23/2005 @ 6:20 am

  4. “Actus, in case you’re not being deliberatly ironic, removing Schiavo’s feeding tube is a measure taken EXPLICITLY to cause her death. That’s why the death penalty analogies are relevant. ”

    Sure. But the death penalty is a punishment for a crime, this is a completely different situation.

    actus (e8ffe9) — 3/23/2005 @ 6:26 am

  5. You’re confusing review procedure, which is what Patterico is talking about and which is nearly identical in death penalty cases, with the substance of the cases.

    The Angry Clam (c96486) — 3/23/2005 @ 9:26 am

  6. This federal court round does seem a lot like the last round of appeals before an execution. The primary difference is that there is no need to discuss “guilt.”

    And in any event, if Schiavo was a multiple axe-murderessm she could no be executed in her current condition.

    Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 3/23/2005 @ 12:17 pm

  7. “And in any event, if Schiavo was a multiple axe-murderessm she could no be executed in her current condition.”

    Why not?

    actus (ebc508) — 3/23/2005 @ 1:29 pm

  8. It was ruled constitutionally impermissible to execute people who are not “mentally capable” at the time of their execution.

    That means that, even if you were sane when you got sentenced to death, if you went totally nuts in prison (and could prove it) you’d escape execution until you regained clarity.

    And they can’t medicate you to sanity without your permission, either.

    Thanks, Supreme Court!

    The Angry Clam (c96486) — 3/23/2005 @ 1:32 pm

  9. “It was ruled constitutionally impermissible to execute people who are not “mentally capable” at the time of their execution.”

    At the time of execution, or at the time of the crime?

    actus (ebc508) — 3/23/2005 @ 2:21 pm

  10. But even then, thats under the 8th amendment, which you have to be very anti-textualist to read as applying to things other than punishment.

    actus (ebc508) — 3/23/2005 @ 2:22 pm

  11. At the time of the execution.

    The Angry Clam (c96486) — 3/23/2005 @ 6:25 pm


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0686 secs.