You are selected for a jury in a trial of a 64-year-old ...



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? [See Ellington, K. 2003, “Justice Tempered With Mercy,” Houston Chronicle, January 30, 10A. The prosecutor took a plea of guilty to assisting suicide.]

The above case is very difficult to solve pragmatically. One must look at the situation in a variety of ways, weigh the options, and then, ultimately, utilize the tools available to decide the case. There are clear moral and ethnical issues, but there are also clear legal issues that do not leave room for the gray area of decision making.

Ethically, one has to feel great pain for the mother. She had first-hand experience in dealing with Huntington’s, and knew the great pain and suffering to which her sons were heading. As a mother, her greatest wish would be to prevent her children from pain and harm – some might argue that not acting would be criminal in that it would cause the sons to experience agony without respite. However, it was clear that her actions were of a sane and thoughtful person, premeditated, purposeful, and under the legal definition of first-degree murder, she committed the act. It is not possible to morally have a “sliding” rule of the law, where a premeditated murder action is treated as being permissible in one situation and not permissible in others. As a society, we have the responsibility to act within the letter of the law, and if we believe the law is unjust, then work to change or amend said law.

It does appear, though, that if the jury found that the murder was committed under “mental duress,” or extenuating circumstances, they could vote a Not Guilty Verdict. In that case, the moral ambiguity of this case was decided by the law, and a jury of her peers decided that the law was not in force in this case. At this point, the Judge could either throw out the verdict and act on his/her own, or accept the verdict as valid. It is unlikely the prosecutor would appeal the Not Guilty Verdict. Conversely, if the Jury voted Guilty, but added recommendations because of “temporary insanity,” or “extenuating circumstances,” then the Judge would have the power to enforce a decision that would uphold the letter of the law while still understanding the human interests of the case (house arrest, large number of community service hours, etc.).

What is missing from the scenario are the legal arguments a good defense attorney would make. It would seem quite viable that the mother was so distraught with the memories of her husband’s illness that she could simply not allow her son’s to endure that horror, and so distraught that her regular moral self was subjugated. A trial by jury would be the best way for the defense to present its case, and to make the rhetorical argument of suffering, pain, and lack of any serious medical solution to the problem.

References:



a site for information on mercy killing and various legal and societal responses



structures the argument between mercy killing and a merciful death

Dowbiggin, Ian, (2003), A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America,

Oxford University Press.

Moreno, Jonathan, ed. (19952), Arguing Euthanasia: The Controversy Over Mercy Killing, Assisted Suicide and

The Right to Die, Touchstone.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download