You are selected for a jury in a trial of a 64-year-old mother who killed her two adult sons.The two men were institutionalized and suffered from Huntington’s disease, a degenerative brain disease. They were certain to die and would endure much pain and suffering before they did. Her husband had also
died from this same disease and she had nursed him through his suffering. She took a gun into the nursing home, kissed her sons goodbye, and then shot them both through the head. She was arrested for first-degree murder.
The prosecutor informs you that there is no “mercy killing” defense in the law as it is written. How would you decide this case? What punishment does she deserve?
2007-01-02 14:51:36 · 17 answers · asked by journeythroughlife85 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Since there is no law, guilty. Punishment is the minimum mandated by law. We cannot allow people to get away with breaking the law because of emotional issues. The minute we do that, it is anarchy.
2007-01-02 14:53:26 · answer #1 · answered by GOPneedsarealconservative 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
In many states this would be a "death-eligible" crime (murder of two victims). Yet I find that the murder of the mother (by the state) to be less justifiable than the murder of the sons - the "mercy killing" - by the mother. In other words, just because it is legal does not make it the best, most just, or most ethical result. In this case you have an arrogant, self-righteous prosecutor with no sense of mercy.
Although it may not be supported by the instructions the judge reads the jury, it is the jury's responsibility to render a fair and just verdict. In this case it seems necessary to acquit of first degree murder. If the court has submitted any lesser-included offenses (less serious alternatives to first-degree murder) that are misdemeanors, I would convict of one misdemeanor charge, because the mothers actions, while they do not justify serious felony charges, are not justified.
2007-01-02 17:29:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, the fact that she took the gun with her, proves that there was "malice aforethought" and therefore, legally, she has to be tried for first degree murder.
As a cancer patient, I also look at the situation through the dead children's point of view. We find cures for diseases every day. I would sympathize with her (as a mother myself) but we can't change the rules for each and every case. She would have to be tried for a premediated crime.
2007-01-02 15:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a little-known legal concept known as "jury nullification", by which a jury can nullify the law in certain instances where they see fit. I personally believe that while murder is wrong, killing someone to end their suffering(if that person is of sound mind and can at least consent legally) is far more justifiable than letting them suffer a painful and slow death. I would let the rest of the jury know that they can nullify the murder law in that instance, and would encourage anyone who shared my views on euthanasia to find her not guilty.
2007-01-02 14:57:03 · answer #4 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
A juror swears an oath to uphold the law, not take their own moral view of what is or is not permissable. I would find on the facts, as directed by the judge, and return a verdict of guilty.
2007-01-02 14:54:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obvious, the mother was demented not to see the legalities under which harming one or the two would lead ,thus the punishement should be to be institutionalized to a demented institution.
2007-01-02 14:57:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None. She has suffered enough, and would be suffering still. No sane mother would deliberately kill her children just for the fun of it.
Court decisions are overturned, laws are repelled, amended, or deemed unconstitutional. God gave us the power to think, it would be an insult not to use it.
2007-01-02 15:05:49 · answer #7 · answered by McDreamy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are a country of laws and if we don't go by those laws we will stop being a country and become a lawless land. As hard as it seems she must be found guilty and sent to prison for life.
2007-01-02 14:57:33 · answer #8 · answered by Joe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If pain and suffering qualifies you to be euthanized, we'd lose about 90% of the worlds population in one clean sweep. Where do you draw the line and who will draw it?
Its murder.
2007-01-02 14:58:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
until the laws are changed to address this issue, she must be held accountable for her actions.
Unfortunately she is guilty of premeditated murder, I believe the guidelines are clear for this type of crime.
How many invalid cripples would be snuffed out if we legally allowed people to decide their fate?
2007-01-02 15:30:51 · answer #10 · answered by DB 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋