I saw in the news where that girl received a conviction on involuntary manslaughter in the suicide death of that young man. I admit to not really studying all the facts in the case. I did hear where he got out of the truck at one point and she encouraged him to get back in. So I agree with the judgement that she is partially responsible. She had the opportunity to save his life but choose not to. In my way of thinking that was a " voluntary " decision on her part so I'm not sure of the involuntary charge, perhaps it should have been something different. Whatever the case, she was implicit in his death of that much I am certain. Did she think it was a game or that he wasn't serious ? I can't say. I believe that at the very least she should have reported it to the police or other competent authorities rather than allowing him to kill himself.
Now that being said I raise the question of assisted suicide. I have heard some of those condemning this girl for what she did supporting the assisted suicide cause. My question is a simple one, can you have it both ways ? What I mean to say is can I encourage you to kill yourself to the point of helping ? All that is necessary is the spoken word, no drugs or physical assistance of any kind. Apparently the judge and jury thought that was criminal, al least in this case it was. Would it have made a difference if he had a terminal illness or was just old ? If so, how come ? But that's different you say ? Although I don't agree I would say both actions are being done to " ease the suffering " that person is experiencing. Again you answer, the emotional distress is a temporary thing whereas a terminal illness certainly isn't. The logic there is plain, it is alright to expedite a known result. I would answer we will all die one day, a known result, so why can't I expedite that at any time I choose ? It's a slippery slope in my estimation.
To me this is another case of trying to legislate morality. Either it is legal or it is not. Morals can not be decided on a case by case basis. That is what this is. Can I encourage and/or assist a person in committing suicide or can't I ? If I can, what are the qualifiers ? And , more importantly, who gets to define that qualifier ? Is it the person wishing to commit the act or a state sponsored authority ? Should I have to apply for a " permit " or " release from liability " before assisting ? Just how imminent would that death have to be ? That would seem logical if we are just basing this on law. If we include an inherent moral obligation to " save a life " whenever possible how could we then determine that ? Moral behavior is not on a case by case basis ! So the question then becomes was this girl guilty of a crime, involuntary manslaughter, or a moral infraction ? If you say she is guilty of a crime wouldn't it then always be a crime to assist in the suicide of another human being ? If she is guilty of a moral infraction is she subject to mans' law ? In this case it would seem so. It does strike me as rather contradictory to the rhetoric I keep hearing from some. If I am an attorney I would cite this case as precedent. You can't encourage or assist anyone in a suicide without being guilty of involuntary manslaughter. We'll have to see how that all plays out.
To sum it up, personally I think she is guilty. She had the chance to help, to save a life perhaps, and choose to do nothing. What were her motives for that choice ? I can't know that any more than you do. We can assume or speculate about all of that but we can't really know. I have to believe that she didn't really take it seriously and thought he wouldn't go through with it. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have such a disregard for another human being. Truly it would take a dark heart and soul to do such a thing. Should she get twenty years for involuntary manslaughter ? Of that I'm not certain. She should certainly be held to account. Was it criminal or moral, this infraction ? Are we to be held criminally responsible for our words ? Truth is we already are, to a degree. You can't holler fire in a crowded theatre or use " hate " speech. We have determined that words are hurtful. Now we are trying to define just what words are just hurtful and what words are criminal. The problem being, crimes are tried on an individual basis. Morals are the standards set by society for acceptable behavior. This behavior was apparently criminal. The real question remaining is, what can I say ?
Now that being said I raise the question of assisted suicide. I have heard some of those condemning this girl for what she did supporting the assisted suicide cause. My question is a simple one, can you have it both ways ? What I mean to say is can I encourage you to kill yourself to the point of helping ? All that is necessary is the spoken word, no drugs or physical assistance of any kind. Apparently the judge and jury thought that was criminal, al least in this case it was. Would it have made a difference if he had a terminal illness or was just old ? If so, how come ? But that's different you say ? Although I don't agree I would say both actions are being done to " ease the suffering " that person is experiencing. Again you answer, the emotional distress is a temporary thing whereas a terminal illness certainly isn't. The logic there is plain, it is alright to expedite a known result. I would answer we will all die one day, a known result, so why can't I expedite that at any time I choose ? It's a slippery slope in my estimation.
To me this is another case of trying to legislate morality. Either it is legal or it is not. Morals can not be decided on a case by case basis. That is what this is. Can I encourage and/or assist a person in committing suicide or can't I ? If I can, what are the qualifiers ? And , more importantly, who gets to define that qualifier ? Is it the person wishing to commit the act or a state sponsored authority ? Should I have to apply for a " permit " or " release from liability " before assisting ? Just how imminent would that death have to be ? That would seem logical if we are just basing this on law. If we include an inherent moral obligation to " save a life " whenever possible how could we then determine that ? Moral behavior is not on a case by case basis ! So the question then becomes was this girl guilty of a crime, involuntary manslaughter, or a moral infraction ? If you say she is guilty of a crime wouldn't it then always be a crime to assist in the suicide of another human being ? If she is guilty of a moral infraction is she subject to mans' law ? In this case it would seem so. It does strike me as rather contradictory to the rhetoric I keep hearing from some. If I am an attorney I would cite this case as precedent. You can't encourage or assist anyone in a suicide without being guilty of involuntary manslaughter. We'll have to see how that all plays out.
To sum it up, personally I think she is guilty. She had the chance to help, to save a life perhaps, and choose to do nothing. What were her motives for that choice ? I can't know that any more than you do. We can assume or speculate about all of that but we can't really know. I have to believe that she didn't really take it seriously and thought he wouldn't go through with it. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have such a disregard for another human being. Truly it would take a dark heart and soul to do such a thing. Should she get twenty years for involuntary manslaughter ? Of that I'm not certain. She should certainly be held to account. Was it criminal or moral, this infraction ? Are we to be held criminally responsible for our words ? Truth is we already are, to a degree. You can't holler fire in a crowded theatre or use " hate " speech. We have determined that words are hurtful. Now we are trying to define just what words are just hurtful and what words are criminal. The problem being, crimes are tried on an individual basis. Morals are the standards set by society for acceptable behavior. This behavior was apparently criminal. The real question remaining is, what can I say ?
No comments:
Post a Comment