From: Gregg N 

"Gary Britt"  wrote in
news:42462d97$1{at}w3.nls.net:

> No you agreed with the statement that only convicted criminals have a
> constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, in as far as punishment applies only to criminals.

>  I was
> merely pointing out the obvious that Terri a non-convicted criminal
> has no rights of protection in the constitution against being burned
> alive or starved to death.

I don't know about being burned alive, but the starvation (really
dehydration) is not a punishment, it is supposedly what *she* wanted.

> You agree and support the starvation part
> at a minimum.

No, I'm not sure I do. Like you do, I'm sure, I find the idea of letting a
living human being die from dehydration extremely disturbing. But laws
prescribing the types of punishment permitted to be meted out to criminals
are not applicable here. The court determined that this is what
*she* wanted. You (and I) might disagree with the courts that she really
wanted that, or even that what she wanted is relevant, but that's currently
how it is, and that was the court's determination.

I try to accept this by understanding that a person without any living
nerve matter in their cerebral cortex no longer has any memories, or
thoughts, or feelings, or hopes. Every one of those she had is gone. She is
basically a bunch of organs. If she did have any consciousness, what a
truely hellish existance that must be. But I dont' think she does, based on
what I've read.

Gregg

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5