Father who killed son gets 2 years suspended sentence

BillieTheBot

I really dont know how I feel about this case, the kid did have a terminal illness and the father mental illness brought on from his experiences in the SAS.

And I agree with the judge that sending him to jail would solve nothing.

But two years suspended sentence for killing your son?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4350153.stm

Former Member

The hjudge thought the parents both wanted it and it was in the aid of thier son. If had just ben for the dads benefit etc then he said he would have punished him.

Its tragic but I see why the dad would, prison wouldn't solve anything.

I think he should get some counselling though.

Former Member

I was really surprised by this sentence and whilst we clearly haven't had all the details of the case reported in the press, I've got to say this is a worrying judgement. That mercy killing is being proposed as an acceptable end to life has got to be the first (and most significant) step towards full and legal euthanasia whereby somebody whose life is deemed not to be worth living by a third party is put out of their alleged misery.

Former Member

Kentish wrote:

That mercy killing is being proposed as an acceptable end to life has got to be the first (and most significant) step towards full and legal euthanasia whereby somebody whose life is deemed not to be worth living by a third party is put out of their alleged misery.

That's certainly the message it gives out, if someone close to you is terminally ill or just really sick then its alright to 'ease their suffering'.

But, should judges sentence people based on the case or based on the public perception of the case?

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

But, should judges sentence people based on the case or based on the public perception of the case?

The public perception will inevitably affect any judgement - that's why we have a judiciary afterall. And the California execution proves that. But of course the judge is the one with the facts and the jury's verdict, so he must hold the responsibilty for sentencing lest we end up with televoting sentencing.

Former Member

The sentence worries me, in the sentencing statement up I get the feeling that the judge has given people the right to kill a terminally ill person knowing that they will get a suspended sentence.

I don't agree, but then we've covered that before.

Former Member

I perosnally agree with euthanasia, I think it should be legal, though under conditons of course.

Former Member

I dunno really.

The whole point about locking people up is to get them to feel remorse/punish them for what they have done/stop them from doing it again. If you already see that these things in place, it seems a bit sad to only lock them up as a warning to others.

Theres no justice in using the law only because it might be a warning.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

The sentence worries me, in the sentencing statement up I get the feeling that the judge has given people the right to kill a terminally ill person knowing that they will get a suspended sentence.

A suspended sentence for manslaughter isn't all that uncommon, to be quite honest.

He wasn't convicted of murder, don't forget that. The jury acquitted him of murder, that's twelve members of the public.

Former Member

This is a very tough subject - it'd be a great essay subject.

I agree with Bongbudda and the others who say that sending the father to prison would have solved nothing. I guess I sympathise with the father who, under the mental stress that he had after years in the SAS during which time, I'm willing to bet, he must have seen and done some pretty fucked up things, saw his terminally ill son and maybe, in some bizarre logic, wanted the best for him and thus ended his life a little more prematurely than was going to happen.

I guess the judge has done the right thing - it must be the kind of case they dread having to preside over.

Former Member

I think being in a war situation and under that kind of stress will change your persepctive on life, but it isn't an excuse or even a reasonable explanation unless he actually has been affected demonstrably (and I guess the defence had to prove that for the trial).

Former Member

\

Former Member

It was a short sentence because the boy was disabled. Disgusting.

Former Member

Seems a strange case. When it was being originally reported it seemed that the wife denied it was a mercy killing and said that he killed her son because he was at the end of the tether whilst dealing with a disabled child. The defence case said that she had agreed with her husband that there son was suffering too much and it was a mercy killing.

It seems the judge and jury went with the defence.

Now I believe that 'mercy' killings should be illegal (and certainly by a member of the family). But (and it may be hypocrisy) that they should not be punished too severely. his past record as a member of the SAS is irrelevant.