I understand that argument but I’m not sure he should have been given the choice.He's gone now and no expensive court case for spain to worry about. Its what he wanted and the "judge" and therefore the law, was happy to let it happen
I understand that argument but I’m not sure he should have been given the choice.
They wouldn’t give him a choice to decide his own sentence so why give him a choice that ultimately benefits him.
If he had died when the Police shot him we wouldn’t be having this argument. This is why I’m conflicted.
I can see the relatives of the victims point of view, but if the law allows for euthanasia to happen in these circumstances, he has simply made use of the law.
This is an extreme version of what takes place in Courts throughout the world. Those being prosecuted, (and I use the term loosely not just in a criminal context), will use whatever means they can to avoid, or minimise sanction: Documents not being served correctly, a speed camera not having the correct paperwork, attacking the reliability of witnesses, etc.
He's avoided sanction in the same way that Guy Fawkes did.
Guy Fawkes had a trial, found guilty and then managed to avoid the most horrible part of his death.
This man hasn’t had any trial.
Ian Brady tried to end his life for years but was force fed to keep him alive.
I don’t know the right answers either way.
It would give the victims closure.I appreciate that his victims families wanted him to be prosecuted, but what, really, would that have done?