Thursday, March 24, 2005
While reading the legal arguements and counterarguements between Hugh Hewitt and The Volokh Conspiracy , more questions arise over this wrenching dilemma. While the lawyers parse out the intricacies and turns of statutes and arguement, and look to the law to determine and inform their opinions, should or could they not look at the dilemma and say to themselves, "A woman who's committed no crime has received a sentence of death. This is not right! " Does the law permit death because in this case it finds no prohibition? Can this be so? Is interest in protecting life permitted or defined by statute alone, and otherwise thrown to the wind? Who would stand up and publicly declare, there is not law to stop this, therefore she must die...?
Posted by Kerry at 5:56 AM