Monday
March 28, 2005
TERRI'S LEGACY & THE CULTURE OF LIFE: Those who favored
Congress' intervention in the Terri Schiavo case made a two-tiered
argument to justify their support. The first tier was strictly
legal: a variety of factors in the case (including questions about
Michael Schiavo's fitness as guardian and conflicting medical
testimony as well as a possible misdiagnosis of PVS) allowed for
Congress to mandate a de novo hearing at the federal
level. The second tier of the argument - which represented the
broader question propelling the first - was a strictly moral one:
our society should place an exceptionally high value on innocent
human life and should take steps to prevent a severely handicapped
woman from being starved to death, especially when questions lingered
over what her own wishes might have been.
If one is
convinced of the moral strength of the argument for saving Terri
Schiavo (which millions upon millions of Americans are), and if
one further adheres to the proposition every innocent life is
worth protecting and that we as a society should not countenance
a system that results in the death of a single innocent soul,
then are we not obligated to reconsider support of the death penalty
under all circumstances except those in which confessions have
been voluntarily given?
The fact is, while it cannot be said for certain
that we have yet executed an innocent person in the United States,
it also cannot be said with certainty we haven't. Since 1973,
one
hundred and nineteen people sentenced to death row have been
exonerated prior to execution, a statistic that would lead any
rational person to conclude that out
of the 956 persons executed in the United States since 1976,
it is quite possible we have taken the life of at least one person
who was innocent. Here are
five cases in particular where the defendants were executed
while doubts remained as to their guilt.
Whether one has supported the death penalty under
the moral justification of deterrence or "retributive
justice", after the outcry over Terri Schiavo it seems
to me to be extremely difficult to reconcile that support with
the new standard of intervening in individual cases to make sure
that we as a society always "err
on the side of life."
Indeed, one
of the ironies of this entire episode is that supporters of Congress'
intervention argued that Schiavo should be given the same right
to appeal her case in federal court as is afforded convicted killers
on death row. But according to an expert I spoke to, while death
penalty cases are heard in some instances (though not all) by
appellate courts on questions of due process they never get de
novo hearings at the federal level, nor has there ever been
an instance where Congress felt the need to intervene and mandate
one.
Here we can
segue to an even larger issue. Many have argued that the moral
questions raised by the Schiavo case outweigh the legal considerations
and that any means of preventing her death (including sending
in the national guard) are morally justifiable.
If this true,
then aren't we obligated to ask a larger question: if one believes
abortion is the taking of innocent life and feels it is our moral
duty to prevent infanticide, shouldn't Congress immediately pass
a law outlawing abortion at the federal level regardless of its
Constitutionality? Wouldn't the saving of a single life (or preventing
a single death by abortion, if you prefer) justify such an action?
And if we
believe deeply held moral beliefs do compel action that is extralegal
or unconstitutional, doesn't that argue in favor of actions like
the one taken by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom who believes,
as do many on the left, that denying gays the right to marry is
morally indefensible and akin to the legal racial discrimination
of blacks in the 1950's?
At what point
are we forced to live within the law even if we disagree morally
with some of the outcomes that result from its application?
The questions
left to us by the tragic case of Terri Schiavo are not easy ones
at all. But they are important, and they should be asked and answered
in a dialogue dictated by intellectual honesty and moral consistency,
not screeching partisanship and political cynicism. -
T. Bevan 12:32 pm Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
