Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Assisted Suicide Husband is Given Life

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From the Beeb

A disgrace, in my opinion. Again, legally this may well have been the only course of action open to the Judge; but I ask you, is this really in the public interest to jail a presumably distraught and traumatised man, posing no demonstrable threat to the community at large?

The law is an ass.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There has been that many cases recently, all of which the person doing the assisting has been convicted meaning the bloke should have known, ultimately what will happen to him.
    Morality/justification aside, it's still murder, however the fact he only got 3 years which will be reduced to 1 1/2 instead of the mandatory minimum of 14 shows where the judge's feelings lie.

    I've no doubt the law will change eventually, but it won't be brought about by people carrying out the assisted suicides and trying to win a test case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There has been that many cases recently, all of which the person doing the assisting has been convicted meaning the bloke should have known, ultimately what will happen to him.

    Well quite but then again, I doubt after the years he is said to have endured, that legal considerations were at the forefront of his mind. 'He knew what he was doing, and the consequences' seems to me to inject a little more of a dispassionate rational choice element into the equation than perhaps there might have been.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere, I find that very cynical. I hardly think he was trying to bring a test case forward. He did what was right for his wife - he probably knew he'd be jailed - and acted in a manner that was not necessarily in his own interests to serve hers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    piccolo wrote: »
    Whowhere, I find that very cynical. I hardly think he was trying to bring a test case forward. He did what was right for his wife - he probably knew he'd be jailed - and acted in a manner that was not necessarily in his own interests to serve hers.

    I think what whowhere means is that change will occur not through a court setting a legal precedent by saying it's not murder but through some other means.

    If it was me in his shoes I'd probably have done the same. But who can say what they'll do in that kind of situation. Having seen someone suffer though it's a traumatic experience. Thankfully in that case it was quite quick because the doctors put him on painkillers and steroids that stopped him feeling any pain and weakness even if it didn't stop him dying from the inside.

    The law is the law, it is absolute and shouldn't be bent. However, I think if it should have been bent, it should have been with this case rather than the case where those men set about sabotaging planes.

    People say 'no victim no crime' and I think given the nature of assisted suicide if the person is that willing, are they really a victim?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I've no doubt the law will change eventually, but it won't be brought about by people carrying out the assisted suicides and trying to win a test case.
    I don't think they do it for that reason. If flying to Switzerland is not practical or possible and one of my relatives was in that position and asked me for help I would not give rat's arse what the law might have to say about it.

    It's nothing short of a disgrace that this man has been jailed. Even if technically guilty nothing stopped the judge from giving him a suspended sentence is it?

    I don't want to start another argument on the same subject but I'm pretty sick to death of certain individuals/groups wanting to impose their beliefs on the rest of us and doing everything they can to keep things that way :mad:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin - the law is there for a reason though and it should be unwavering and uncompromising to maintain any respect people have for it. At the moment with speeding fines for example and laws favouring massive companys rather than individuals I would say most people pick and choose what laws they respect.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I don't think they do it for that reason.



    I'm not saying they do, i'm not saying they are killing their partner for the sake of making a point. However when they are arrested and appear in court, no doubt they will be hoping/praying that they will be the one who will be vindicated, and their example will be followed for future prosecutions.
    Right this very moment you're arguing that the law should be changed to prevent people like him from being prosecuted. That's all well and good, but what's needed is a mass agreement that euthenasia be made legal. Protesting outside of a courthouse or starting up petitions trying to get them released without charge won't bring about that change at all.

    As for imposing will's e.t.c. from what i've seen there is no evidence whatsoever that the majority of people in this country agree with assisted suicide anyway, until 50million odd people who haven't spoken all speak up and say they agree with euthanasia, the efforts of the few who think the law should be changed will be fruitless.

    Until then, it's murder. The judge by his actions of giving the chap 3 years instead of 14 has shown he agrees with the defendant in principle but his hands are tied. To give a murderer (that is what he is in the eyes of the law) a suspended sentence would be the same as sticking 2 fingers up at the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She wanted someone to help her die because she had irritable bowel syndrome??????

    Thats a bit far fetched surely?
    Even if it made her life intolerable, it wouldnt have made her unable to kill herself, and thats the only way i can see assisted suicide as being ok.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    agree ^

    I was nearly outraged at the sentance until I noticed her prob was IBS, which I think makes it likely that she could have committed suicide all on her lonesome.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    She wanted someone to help her die because she had irritable bowel syndrome??????

    And depression
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not long enough IMHO

    This wasn't a case of someone being incapable of taking their own life (although I don't agree with that either) and he's damned lucky to get off like he has...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not long enough IMHO

    This wasn't a case of someone being incapable of taking their own life (although I don't agree with that either) and he's damned lucky to get off like he has...

    :yes: And it wasn't as if she had some life threatening illness that would've made her quality of life rubbish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote: »
    And depression

    I tend to think there are better ways of dealing with depression than helping someone end it...

    I can just about see the case for euthanasia in cases of terminal illness, I can't in this case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suspect, don't know, but suspect that there is more to this story than meets the eye if he's only been given 3 years and she could have done it herself.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Aladdin - the law is there for a reason though and it should be unwavering and uncompromising to maintain any respect people have for it. At the moment with speeding fines for example and laws favouring massive companys rather than individuals I would say most people pick and choose what laws they respect.

    hmm the problem is that being found guilty of murder, which noone would contest is always going to have a life sentence attached, there was talk earlier this year of providing more a variation in possible sentencing for murder depending on circumstances


    thankfully this guy will only have to serve 3 years in prison before being eligible for parole BUT he will be on life license(that's the life sentence) meaning that any petty crime will result in reimprisonment
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    From the Beeb

    A disgrace, in my opinion. Again, legally this may well have been the only course of action open to the Judge; but I ask you, is this really in the public interest to jail a presumably distraught and traumatised man, posing no demonstrable threat to the community at large?

    The law is an ass.

    No. It's his body, so his right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is that he intentionally killed his wife, which is murder, and the minimum sentence for murder is life. Whilst that seems harsh, it was only by making the minimum sentence life that the death penalty was repealed in 1967.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    No. It's his body, so his right.

    I don't understand your point- are you saying that it's his body and therefore his right to do what he pleases with it even if that's ending another person's life, or what?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is that he intentionally killed his wife, which is murder, and the minimum sentence for murder is life. Whilst that seems harsh, it was only by making the minimum sentence life that the death penalty was repealed in 1967.

    Yes I agree, which I why I stated that definition of the law, rather than its application was the problem. Although in sentencing at least a degree of clemency was granted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    toth8 wrote: »
    No. It's his body, so his right.

    :confused:

    Erm... it wasn't his body...
Sign In or Register to comment.