It's an odd discussion to see happening in the U.S.
I always expect people on the right side of the political spectrum (American republicans and democrats) to argue against government involvement in any case like this.
I'd have thought that countries like Canada - which is based on more government to have this debate.
But it's the reverse.
The debate here is pretty much done - government out, for the most part.
And Americans are increasingly involving the government in personal decisions.
What would Herbert Hoover think?
Quote:Now more than four decades old, Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution continues to guide and define its mission in the twenty-first century:
"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves.... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."
The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.
I like (?) to read the research and essays found at the Institute site. Often thought-provoking, even when I don't want to be provoked.
http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/
In attempted murder; there's no statute of limitations. I'm not suggesting anything more than the case is at least as worthy of an appeal as any Death Row case I've read. It seems only fitting that a venue for such an appeal be created before the State of Florida is potentially an accomplice to murder. Why the rush to kill her? Who benefits by her being killed today instead of after all legal and medical questions have been answered? Hell, who benefits period?
That is a truly scary link. I hadn't read that before writing