Euthanasia - Murder Trial

[The Atheist]

Can't really say much about this at the moment. I know this bloke and wasn't aware of what had happened until today. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10461549&pnum=2)

Life sucks, you watch your mum screaming in pain, then you go to jail for murder*.

*I cannot see any other result, going by NZ's laws and recent precedent.

[Puppycow]

This is a terrible injustice.
Can't anything be done?
Clearly this is an act of mercy.
My idea for a protest sign would be:
Don't Punish an Act of Mercy

Is there anyone we can write to to protest this?

[The Atheist]

Is there anyone we can write to to protest this?

Nope, it's all been tried (and convicted) before.

[Loss Leader]

Remember, there are two phases to a criminal trial - culpability and sentencing. If, under law, he is guilty, the reasons for his actions should affect his sentence.

[EvilSmurf]

I'm surprised that a jury had the heartlessness to convict him, tbh.

[Puppycow]

I'm surprised that a jury had the heartlessness to convict him, tbh.

He hasn't been convicted yet.
TA: Is it a jury trial? Not every country has trial by jury. Japan, for one, does not.

[The Atheist]

Remember, there are two phases to a criminal trial - culpability and sentencing. If, under law, he is guilty, the reasons for his actions should affect his sentence.

Correct. The bad news is, once convicted the minimum sentence is 10 years.

I'm surprised that a jury had the heartlessness to convict him, tbh.

The trouble is that heart has nothing to do with it - the law is very clear and several others are currently in jail for the same crime.

N.B. He hasn't been found guilty yet.

TA: Is it a jury trial? Not every country has trial by jury. Japan, for one, does not.

Yes, it will be a jury trial, and previous judges have been very stringent in advising juries to ignore personal feelings and purely decide guilt or innocence on the facts. That's happened every time to date.

[quixotecoyote]

Yes, it will be a jury trial, and previous judges have been very stringent in advising juries to ignore personal feelings and purely decide guilt or innocence on the facts. That's happened every time to date.

I hope that if this happened in America, one of the jurors would know about jury nullification.

[skeptifem]

ive heard of cases of mercy killings where a person got convicted but the judges worked out the lightest sentance possible under the law. I do not know much about the legal system there but hopefully something similar is possible :(

[Puppycow]

What would have happened I wonder if instead of admitting it to the nurse he had simply stated "I have no comment" and lawyered up? Would that have made a difference? People often pave the way for their own conviction with such statements. Of course, I can't say what I would do in the circumstances. Sometimes you don't handle things as would have if you had carefully thought it through in advance.

[The Atheist]

What would have happened I wonder if instead of admitting it to the nurse he had simply stated "I have no comment" and lawyered up?

Even better than no comment would have been a simple, "What? I have no idea what you're talking about. The syringe was empty, you say? How did that happen?"

Then again, as you say, the state of mind of someone who's just topped his mum mightn't be up to that level.

[rjh01]

There are cases where the defendant, despite strong evidence that the person is guilty has been found not guilty by the jury. This has happened not because the jury being stupid but because the defendant did not deserve to go to jail.

One case I can think of is that a security guard was robbed and bashed and as the robbers were running away she shot and killed one of them. The jury found her not guilty. It is bed time and so do not have the time to find a link.

[Puppycow]

In Texas a man shot a man who allegedly molested his kids. There was no question but that he did it. It was on video. The jury found not guilty.

[fuelair]

Correct. The bad news is, once convicted the minimum sentence is 10 years.



The trouble is that heart has nothing to do with it - the law is very clear and several others are currently in jail for the same crime.

N.B. He hasn't been found guilty yet.



Yes, it will be a jury trial, and previous judges have been very stringent in advising juries to ignore personal feelings and purely decide guilt or innocence on the facts. That's happened every time to date.
Like a real jury would follow that pathetic "rule".:)

[fuelair]

In Texas a man shot a man who allegedly molested his kids. There was no question but that he did it. It was on video. The jury found not guilty.

Like I said just above. The sad thing is there are places in the US so pathetic they would have voted guilty.

[The Atheist]

Great news!

The Justices hearing the case have managed to change the charge from murder to attempted murder, so now, even if found guilty, he doesn't have to do jail time.

This is the first time in NZ's history that a murder charge brought by the Crown has been discharged at deposition. Hope the Justice Dep't doesn't appeal, but it appears that the pathologist's report gives the escape from the murder charge.

Link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10461717)

It might encourage other pathologists to write their reports in the same fashion. Can only hope.

[rjh01]

I do not get it. How can a person be guilty of attempted murder when the person died? Maybe he failed to kill the person and he died of other causes?

[The Atheist]

I do not get it. How can a person be guilty of attempted murder when the person died? Maybe he failed to kill the person and he died of other causes?

1 He admitted to hitting the whole syringe.

2 He had been advised that doing that may cause death.

3 The pathologist stated:

the cause of death was "advanced intra abdominal malignancy, with morphine a possible contributing factor".

Murder cannot therefore be proven, because the morphine wasn't a certain cause of death - the pathologist has declined to say that it killed her, because the cancer was far advanced enough that it could equally have been the cause of death.

The son tried to kill her, so he's being done for attempted murder, which I must admit is a bit odd, because the victim of an attempted murder isn't usually dead.

[geni]

This is a terrible injustice.
Can't anything be done?

Can send the guy to jail.


Clearly this is an act of mercy.


Prove it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Like I said just above. The sad thing is there are places in the US so pathetic they would have voted guilty.

How pathetic. Clearly enyone who thinks that someone has committed a crime should be free to kill them without having to bother with details like a trial or evidence.

[Professor Yaffle]

There are cases where the defendant, despite strong evidence that the person is guilty has been found not guilty by the jury. This has happened not because the jury being stupid but because the defendant did not deserve to go to jail.



I think it is known as a "perverse verdict".

[rjh01]

Only hope they do not do another pathologist's report and get a different result.

[Damien Evans]

Great news!

The Justices hearing the case have managed to change the charge from murder to attempted murder, so now, even if found guilty, he doesn't have to do jail time.

This is the first time in NZ's history that a murder charge brought by the Crown has been discharged at deposition. Hope the Justice Dep't doesn't appeal, but it appears that the pathologist's report gives the escape from the murder charge.

Link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10461717)

It might encourage other pathologists to write their reports in the same fashion. Can only hope.

The bolded part confuses me.

Do you not have jail time for attempted murder in New Zealand?:confused:

[Puppycow]

Can send the guy to jail.



Prove it.

This is a joke, right? The woman was in pain and was going to die anyway. A quick death is more merciful than a slow painful death.

[The Atheist]

Only hope they do not do another pathologist's report and get a different result.

Highly unlikely. Now that the JPs have tossed the charge out, getting another pathologist to revisit the case would smack of persecution.

The bolded part confuses me.

Do you not have jail time for attempted murder in New Zealand?:confused:

Not if it's an Aussie!

:bgrin:

(Although I think there's a punishment for failing.)

Other than Australians, yes, jail time would be pretty much guaranteed. The judge has a lot more discretion than with a murder conviction and could easily hand out a two-year sentence, and then the bloke can then apply for home detention. In his case, it would be unlikely to be refused.

A lot will depend on the judge. Let's hope he doesn't get a Catholic one.

[geni]

This is a joke, right? The woman was in pain and was going to die anyway. A quick death is more merciful than a slow painful death.

Not your choice. The evidence that is was her choice is kinda biased.

[Damien Evans]

Highly unlikely. Now that the JPs have tossed the charge out, getting another pathologist to revisit the case would smack of persecution.



Not if it's an Aussie!

:bgrin:

(Although I think there's a punishment for failing.)

Other than Australians, yes, jail time would be pretty much guaranteed. The judge has a lot more discretion than with a murder conviction and could easily hand out a two-year sentence, and then the bloke can then apply for home detention. In his case, it would be unlikely to be refused.

A lot will depend on the judge. Let's hope he doesn't get a Catholic one.

Ah, ok, I think it makes sense now.

[The Atheist]

Not your choice. The evidence that is was her choice is kinda biased.

That's the big problem with all euthanasia debate - just because someone is writhing in agony doesn't mean he/she would like to be put down. I can fully understand it, however. Plus, I don't know the bloke well, but I do know him enough to have no doubts that he was being compassionate, in his own mind. His mum may well have asked him to do it at some stage, or with both sisters there as well, it may have been decided as a family. Christ knows.

I talked about taking the medicinal way out with my old man, who died of cancer, but he managed to tough out the pain sufficiently to live at home right to the bitter end and had no intention of taking an early exit.

[rjh01]

There are cases where the defendant, despite strong evidence that the person is guilty has been found not guilty by the jury. This has happened not because the jury being stupid but because the defendant did not deserve to go to jail.



I think it is known as a "perverse verdict".

There was a famous case in the 1850s in Ballarat in the Victoria. 13 people were put on trial for high treason for an 'incident' that claimed several lives, including 4 police. Not only were they all found not guilty, but one of them (Peter Lalor) had a successful political career afterwards.

Link (http://www.ballarat.com/eurekastockade.htm)

[Puppycow]

Not your choice. The evidence that is was her choice is kinda biased.

If his mother was able to communicate, she should of course be asked, but I don't see why anyone should be forced to die a slow death instead of a quick one. Clearly he should have gotten some evidence from her to protect himself, but if it's a matter of assisted suicide, I think that should be allowed. There should be a legal space for this, I believe. The fact that we euthanize animals indicates to me that it is common sense that a quick death is more merciful than a slow death. If a person is capable of choosing we should defer to their wishes. If not, and if they are terminally ill and suffering, then it seems to me that it is the same as with a terminally ill animal.