The Terri Schiavo case has brought this question to the forefront of the minds of thinking people in the United States. The answer is important - as we have seen, it is “life and death” important.

Lots and lots of material has been written, research done, time dedicated and energy expended showing the world the spider web of potential conflicts of interest found in Pinellas County, where Terri Schiavo was starved to death. Suffice it to say that a large portion of those who have truly educated themselves on this issue (both “liberal” and “conservative”) have questions about the outcome that was the result of multiple legal challenges and reviews.

And a woman has died.

If our legal system is capable of making such a grave error in the case of Terri, could it make such a mistake in other cases? Could other people die who shouldn’t?

And if the answer you give is “maybe” – how does this impact your perspective of the death penalty? The question I’m raising is not “Does a murderer deserves to die?” but rather “Could someone be wrongly convicted and subsequently be put to death?” If you don’t trust the legal system with Terri’s life, can you trust the courts with the life of a convicted killer and be logically consistent?

Admittedly, there is one enormous difference between the two cases: the jury.

But is it enough? Is a jury foolproof? Can a jury ever wrongly convict? Would you trust the legal system with your life?

Reasoned debate in the comments section is welcomed, with a couple of caveats. First, you can’t put a monetary value on life, so “cost of execution and appeals versus cost of life in prison” is not a valid consideration. Second, “all conservatives are hypocrites” is also not a valid argument, nor is “liberals don’t think rationally.”