Mercy killings may not always be prosecuted, new guidance suggests
Dignity in Dying welcomed the new guidance, which they said distinguishes between malicious homicide and compassionate assistance to die
Always, but always, prosecute. That’s what the jury’s there for – to decide.
We have got to ban fags, so we live long enough to be “mercy” killed.
That’s joined up government, right?
Another non announcement from a government trying to distract our attention from their competence. The CPS has always been able to use “not in the public interestl as a reason for not prosecuting.
From the “about” page on the CPS website:
“ Prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, our lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that to charge someone with a criminal offence, prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest.
I agree with our Host here…
Always, always, check the circumstances.
Not necessarily through a jury, but every case should certainly pass a prosecutor’s desk.
Because there’s way too many self-appointed “Angels of Mercy” hiding in the rafters. And sometimes in plain sight.
I agree with Tim, you prosecute. If you find that you are not getting convictions in certain circumstances maybe you could justify non pursual on an allocation of resources basis. That’s what ‘guidelines’ should be there for, but you have to do it on a back review of the cases where you tried and failed to get juries to convict. If you’re doing it for the “public good” or the “interests of justice” then whoever is drawing up the guidelines is drawing up in effect a new law.
Not necessarily through a jury, but every case should certainly pass a prosecutor’s desk.
That’s not good enough: prosecutor’s have their biases, files can be “lost” and prosecution may be deemed “not in the public interest” as BiND points out.
I’d settle for a coroner sitting with a jury in the first interest with the verdict at that level determining future action if any.
If we’re going to reform the legal system then perhaps we should also create a “Court of Lions” where summary justice can be delivered relatively cheaply.
Mercy killing is pol.icy now, just look at the midazolam usage.
I find Tim’s position rather illiberal. Why should the courts be involved in what is a personal decision affecting no-one else but the decider?
The right to off-yourself is certainly a freedom I’d die for.
But I have a particular view of mortality. You are born, you die. All life spans are the same. Since the duration is a subjective matter & being dead is not a position you can be subjective from.
I’m not saying you can’t off yourself. I am saying that if someone offs you then the decision about whether this is mercy killing, or desired, or euthanasia, or murder, is a decision that is best left to a jury to decide upon.
Presumably Tim would, in the interest of consistency, want to treat all crimes in the same way. Does he really want the courts to be clogged up with no- or little-hope cases because only a jury should decide?
Mibbe we shouldn’t want the same people who failed to prosecute grooming gangs to also fail to prosecute potential murders.
BiS
Your system would allow any paricide – for example – to claim it was a mercy killing desired by the parent. Going to be a lot of early inheritances.
Not enough thought suggests to me that maybe that all cases should go through a Coronor’s Inquest rather than either straight to court or subjectively ignored. If the Inquest determines it was murder, then go to court.
“ I’d settle for a coroner sitting with a jury in the first interest with the verdict at that level determining future action if any.
Seems like a good compromise because unexplained and non-natural deaths have to be examined by a coroner anyway and they are one of the few institutions that is fiercely independent and, so far, hasn’t fallen to lefty ideology.
If they are all to be prosecuted let us hope that the “criminal justice” system does a better job than the one it did on Lucy Letby.
I’ve no idea whether she’s guilty but I wouldn’t hang a cat on the slapdash evidence they used. Who the hell was her defence lawyer?
It’s too reminiscent of the Sally Clark business or the earlier scare about satanic abuse.
if someone offs you then the decision about whether this is mercy killing, or desired, or euthanasia, or murder, is a decision that is best left to a jury to decide upon.
If I’ve made a clear recorded statement of my intent WTF’s it got to do with a jury? I should let a jury decide whether I should have a haircut & put the barber on trial if I do?
All I see in this is the old religious aversion to people making a personal decision over the matter. Then dressing it up with any objection they can find. The bansturbator’s selfishness of; if I don’t like it I’ll make sure you can’t do it.
What should happen if you’ve made a declaration to the effect that you want to off yourself, but someone bumps you off before you get round to it, murder?
I think Tim’s opposition to the guidance is in cases where people are shuffled off this mortal coil prematurely at the insistence (and undue influence) of others.
There’s already been a few dubious cases in Canada where they have similar laws which practically encourage people to end it all.
I think Tim’s opposition to the guidance is in cases where people are shuffled off this mortal coil prematurely at the insistence (and undue influence) of others.
There’s nothing new in the principle. My late father made certain “decisions” at the request of his lawyer in the latter part of his life that were hardly in his best interests. Although no doubt in the lawyer’s. That was all above board as no doubt a court would have found if I’d been stupid enough to try taking a lawyer to court. And that was the advice from other lawyers. His last stay in hospital, he was subject to a DNR notice with his agreement, no doubt under the influence of whichever doctor dealt with him. A jury should explore the motives of the doctor?
We all make decisions under the influence of others. Should juries be empanelled to decide the merits of each?