Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
I think it is known as a "perverse verdict".
Euthanasia - Murder Trial
- Thread starter The Atheist
- Start date
I think it is known as a "perverse verdict".
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Only hope they do not do another pathologist's report and get a different result.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
The bolded part confuses me.
Do you not have jail time for attempted murder in New Zealand?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
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
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,364
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?
Not if it's an Aussie!
(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
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Not your choice. The evidence that is was her choice is kinda biased.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
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!
(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
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,364
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
Gentleman of leisure
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
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
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.