Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.

What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.

As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.

I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.


Sometimes the punishment must fit the crime. Mental burden is a helluva punishment.

Basically, however, you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty” should be thrown out the window for “consensus”? I think the entire system of government will collapse over such an ideal that defense attorneys perform a role which they are not hired to do. “Consensus” can be reached in complete ignorance of the truth. I don’t want lawyers discovering or determining truth. Let’s leave that to juries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk