Compassionate Homicide

[Vavutsikarios]

Being physically unable to commit suicide is one of the worst things that can happen to a human.

"Compassionate Homicide" may be the only dignified way out of it.

[Lanemeyer]

Honestly I don't really know what to say about this, I even got troubled trying to figure something out =/

[Machiavelli]

I'm not going to express a personal opinion on this, but I will propose an alternate approach to the question for you Kang! Only some thoughts from a terminal relativist

Ethical or not? The quagmire of moral debate.
If you simply ask the question "Is this ethical/moral?" you are essentially just asking whether the law is justifiable under any particular ethical position. Unless you want to make the (metaphysical) argument that there is some sort of absolute or correct position from which a judgement can be made, the answer will always be ambiguous. Try a different question! Instead of asking if it's ethical, ask "What are the neccesary ethical bases for accepting this as just?". This way you can arm yourself with something concrete. This will be a position regarding individual rights and responsibilities; identify the broader ethical principles underlying the position.

Social Context
*What incentives will be created or altered by this law?
*What are the likely effects on peoples' behaviour?
*Will perverse incentives and outcomes be created? (quite likely in this case I'd guess)
*Is it possible to make a guess at the broader social changes the introduction of such a law would lead to?

Judge it on its own terms
Are the likely outcomes of the law going to be consistent with the ethical position needed to justify it? Ie; even if it will create just outcomes for certain individuals, will its broader effects be counterproductive when considered in terms of the ethical standards underlying it?

[Gabryal]

First my opinion. Everyone deserves the right to take their own life, and if they cannot anyone who would be willing to let them die with dignity should be blessed and not vilified. Taking a life is -never- easy, even when they deserve it, or are trying to kill you ( e.g. a child molester or an enemy soldier ).

However, how is compassionate homicide different than assisted suicide? Is the main differance that in compassionate homicide is that the person who is killed no longer has the ability to even ask to die? My only concern is that no matter how compassionate the reason ( I have -alot- of compassion in me to kill my daughter's sperm donor for example ) there may be no way of knowing if a person wants to die, and without the desire to die, murder is just that, murder. So compassionate homicide would have to have as one of it's points of evidence reasonable proof that the deceased wished to die.

Just my 0.02

P.S. Also I think that "Homicide in the public interest" should be a mitigating or negating reason in court, but that's a little out there for most people

[nickbeat]

I do believe there are varying degrees of murder, 1st degree and second. The example of the drunk person killing someone is 2nd degree murder not manslaughter.

Sadly, the compassionate homicide is very similar to 1st degree murder according to the law. The act was premeditated and intentional. I do hope that our system can ultimately find a way to differentiate punishment based on motive, though sadly this does not appear to be the case.

Consider another example of a mercy killing...

Two men decided to kidnap someone, then one of the men stabbed the kidnapped victim repeatedly while leaving him to bleed to death. The second man out of mercy slits his throat to hasten his death. Is the second man guilty of murder? Was that compassionate homicide?

I personally don't think so of course because the bleeding man perhaps could have been saved.

What should his punishment be? The same as the other one?

[sharringtonm]

I remember this topic discussed in one of my law classes. I think I based my paper around the United States declaration of "The Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as a statement of intent and does not apply to reverse ideals. In the United States we do not have the right to "Death, Enslavement/Incarceration, and Moral Degeneration." Those are only granted by the court systems and not by any other organization or individual.
I got a B.
Have to assume I missed a few points by that score.

Starting off, laws are passed by the majority rule. No matter what conspiracy theories are thought of, no law is passed by 5 people in a smoke filled lounge plotting to control the world. Laws do not have to be moral or ethcial to be laws. They just have to be agreed upon.
Not my opinion, just the fact of the matter about laws.

Do I think assisted suicide is morally wrong? No.
Do I think there needs to be a better system in place to implement it? Yes.

Do I classify it as murder? Yes and No.
I see it as a function of a duty. If it is performed by a fully authorized person or organization with agreed upon credentials and authority by the greater consensus of the country's (or state's) population, then it is not murder, but is a duty.
Examples:
The doctor that calls off life saving methods on someone that has stopped breathing/heart stopped, is doing so because in his professional opinion there is nothing more to be done to save the person. In essence he is Murdering the person. But it is his duty as a professional to do so and there are laws allowing him to do this.

The prison executioner who injects a lethal concotion into a death row inmate, he is technicly murdering them as well, but the courts and the greater majority of the people have decided that it is not murder, but a just punishment.


When an individual no matter his education status or status in society or the medical community decides to take it upon themselves to terminate a life without a lawful order by the majority, they have ignored the will of the popular majority, and as thus knowingly subverted a lawful order.
I don't think "Doctor Death's" should recieve murder sentences. I do belive they should receive sentences in keeping with flaunting the laws of the Supreme Court and the will of the people.



A lot of people don't like being told their opinions are not the same as the majority and will argue that they are right and the rest of the world be damned. We're lucky we live in a country where we can actually call for votes of the population to settle these disputes.
If you feel like a law is unfair and that the people voice is not heard on it, there are systems in place to table a motion for a new law or amendment to an old one. Anyone can do it, not just politicians (though to be honest they are damn good at it, which makes them who they are).


All that is said to back up my answer..

In the United States of America, with our current laws in place, no, it should not be a defense nor any factor in the conviction of a man standing accused.

Post trial sentencing on the other hand is all about the character and the motive of the person. With the exception of minimum sentence laws, sentencing really has nothing to do with laws and is based on moral outlooks.

Yes, it should play a role in mitigating the sentence.


===========
Sorry for the long winded answer but you asked two questions and sought a single answer to cover both. 2+2 = ? 3+4 = ? Different questions have different answers.

[Sammael]

Would Euthanasia count as 'Compassionate Homicide'?

[Kangleton]

Depends who you ask and where you are. And Sean, that was a pretty good answer. I'd say B+ even.

[sharringtonm]

Well here's a good test of the system. I'm about to go commit compassionate murder. I'mgoing to murder my Brother in law. And by doing so will be showing myself some compassion from the stupidity he has inflicted on the family.

My Mother in Law let him borrow her cell phone (thats in my name!) for a week over which he racked up overr 50$ in Internet Charges and 40$ in Toll Calls. And I know nothing about it till I get the bill.
Think they'll give me a lighter sentence in the fact that he's a drain on society,?(he really is, hes a deadbeat dad who owes over 75k in back child support and alimony, the gov't deducts over half of each of his paychecks to pay for said fines, owes over 30k in court system fines, and has yet to keep a job longer then 4 months since I met him years ago. )

Last time he acted up I got a night in jail (he was mad at my wife (his sister) and kicked in the door of my house instead of knocking, I happened to be home and she wasn't! I broke his arm and the cops hauled me away.) I would have done a week happily to be honest.

[nickbeat]

Damn Sean, yer a badass! Why the hell does a well educated and talented man involve themselves with such a person? I know the dude is your brother-in-law but he is no good for your family.

All of need to protect ourselves, and keep these kinds of people out of our life. Get a restraining order, move away if you have to, but for gods sake don't let this jerk effect your life.

You aren't serious about killing him right?

[Kangleton]

Well, in Canada, there are a lot of legal defences that involve the definition of a "reasonable person". When provoked, for example, you can reduce a charge from Murder to Manslaughter if you were provoked so dramatically that any "reasonable person" would have reacted accordingly.

In my opinion, if such a person can be defined for the purposes of provocation, so too should it apply to compassionate homicide.

There is a clear distinction between the man who kills his daugher who exists on the threshold of pain, the man who kills every smoker to spare them from Lung Cancer, and the man who kills in cold blood for no reason; and yet, all are treated in identical manners. In the first example, it is arguable that a "reaonable person" would have done the same - afterall, statistics show that in some provinces and states, as much as 60% of people are in support of Euthanasia and assisted-suicide. Are they all "unreasonable", then? No. But in the second and third cases, it is likely that a "reasonable person" would not have resorted to murder.

I forget where I was going with this. Maybe I'm done.

[nickbeat]

Hypothetically, what would people do if the laws were changed to allow murder in this specifically defined case:

1. The victim is a loved one; Family member, spouse, life-partner.
2. The victim is suffering with no medical solution to relieve them.

Provided these conditions existed, what would happen if this were to be allowed? personally, I think we open a huge can of worms with that.

What if we had a state certified position authorized to make the decision provided they were given a request by #1 above? Would this mitigate the concern for vigilante euthanasia? Or would this establish a morbid sense of the government as dark assassins.

I'm starting to see a story arc here for Sundren!

[Venture]

i say fuck yeah to it. the law cant take away our compassion or are homicidical tendencies

[Gabryal]

Reading all this I find myself deeply frightened (again) by the idea that the majority of people make the laws in the United States. Considering the majority of people might be cases where compassionate homicide would come into play if you were to park on them with a tank.

[nickbeat]

Well, a majority of the people 'suggest' the laws. This does not mean they will go into effect. We do have a representative democracy you know, AND a system of checks and balances to assure the freedoms of the minority are not taken away.

For instance, if we decided to make a law that outlawed cursing then the right to free speech would come into effect and the legal branch would declare the law unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is a good recent example. The federal laws preventing a state from allowing it have been declared unjust and now people in California are free to marry their same sex partner.