Compassionate Homicide

[Machiavelli]

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.

This is what I was getting at obliquely above . Personally I'm of the opinion that this can be the right thing to do under certain (very limited) circumstances. On the other hand, I also think it's appropriate to have serious legal sanctions attached to it. At the point where you provide reduced (or possibly non-existant) legal penalties for it, you make the decision much easier for people. Reduce the penalties and more people will start killing their sick relatives. I see nothing problematic about the fact that people should have to weigh the possibility of losing their freedom as part of any decision of this type.

[Peridan]

I do not think allowing compassionate homicide would be a very good idea for the general populace. Like the above posters have said, laws are a tricky thing and can be twisted to serve any means necessary. Allowing any family member or other biased person to make such a decision is wrong.

If such a thing were to be allowed, I would hope that it would be in the hands of professionals only. Doctors, not just one, but many opinions that reach a consensus. The only way to determine the absolute truth in a case like this is to gather facts and display them openly and with candor.

One may laugh at the idea of Dr. Kevorkian, but in then end I think only pure, cold, unquestionable logic should be used when determining whether or not a person is in too much pain to live.

But as far as a father killing his daughter, or any of the other cases mentioned above, I think they should be classified as murder.

[Kangleton]

But see, it isn't about the logic. It isn't about whether or not the child really needed to die. It is whether or not the father truly and honestly believed it. Because if he did, he lacked criminal intent - he might be mentally ill, stupid, or both, but he is not a man who posesses a criminal nature. However, he will be treated as though he does.

That is just as morally unnacceptable as any other alternative, in my opinion. Using a blanket consequence for a wide variety of intents and people doesn't make much sense. The dangerous will be grouped with those that are not dangerous, as too shall the evil be grouped with those with good hearts.

[Peridan]

Law is not something that can be taken into anyone's hands, regardless of the moral implications of not doing so. And I see what you're saying about the blanket consequences, but I have to disagree.

What you are talking about it the law making a wrong decision based on emotions rather than facts. And while intent does play a part in making a decision, it is only a part.

Fact: The father killed his daughter

That's it. Whatever his intentions were, he still killed his child knowingly and willingly. And under the laws of the United States, that's a crime. So one would say he did have criminal intent. It doesn't matter if she was in pain or if he had a criminal nature or not, it was not his place to do so. He did not have any kind of authority to commit an action of that magnitude, regardless of the circumstances. He should have found another way.

On a legal note, he killed her with full intent. In the four levels of mens rea, he did have more than sufficient criminal intent with "purposely". He had intent to kill, and apparently he either admitted it or it was found some other way.

If was mentally ill, then that is a whole different ball game, one that includes Arkham Asylum and the Joker. And how do you know he has a good heart? How can you really know what's going on in his head?

Now what you object to is that he is being clumped together with those murderers that had less than noble intentions. Compassionate homicide would provide an out for these people like the father. But it would also reduce the law, splintering it further. Not to mention the amount of "bad" people that could take advantage of aforementioned law, which brings us straight back to where we started. With an equal amount of "bad" and "good" murderers let loose as well as being killed.

While I'm at it, I want to point out the absurdity of the statement, "good" murderers.

Feel free to flame, one and all =P

[Silas North]

There is no need to flame Peri. I feel very much the same way he does. While I dare not speak for another. I believe both of us are in agreement that we do not LIKE the idea of a child suffering. He and I seem to also be in agreement that there is much at risk with this sort of law. How hard is it to argue to a court that you did something for kind and compassionate reasons? Even cases that should be OBVIOUS will not be treated as such, no matter what country you are in.

I just do not have enough faith in the intelligence and decency of human beings, despite how much good they ARE capable of as well as bad. It's a shame that munipulating bastards can ruin a good thing for good people.