Real life Moral Maze

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

jowwy

Can't spell, Can't Punctuate....Who care's, Sue Me
I’m not sure how I feel about this story from Spain.
Whilst I support euthanasia in principle, I also think the rule of law needs to take its course and checking out early seems a bit too easy.
What say the combined brains of NCAP?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62651349

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
 
OP
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Veteran
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.
 

jowwy

Can't spell, Can't Punctuate....Who care's, Sue Me
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.

Everyone has a choice, its just whether anyone accepts your choice and in this case the judge did.....
 

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
If that is the way the law in Spain works, why didn't the Police just finish him off at the scene? Seems like a whole lot of extra work to me.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
First off if he hasn't been convicted then he's entitled to presumption of innocence. I know you lose some rights when on remand etc but not all of them.

Given that there is a euthanasia law, and given that he meets the criteria, the system acknowledges that he is experiencing 'unbearable suffering'. So to remove the right to choose euthanasia would be to condone the use of unbearable suffering as a form of punishment within the judicial system, which is essentially torture. The punishment for crime is deprivation of liberty, one forfeits the right to freedom. I'm not convinced that one should forfeit the right, if it exists in that society, to bring an end to one's own unbearable suffering.

Another interesting point is that I'm sure there will be some who would support capital punishment for a crime such as he is accused of committing. I'm not one of them, I'm against it, but if such a sentence were to be carried out, I believe it should be done in as humane and painless way as possible, which is what is suggested by the term 'euthanasia'. Here the punishment is loss of life, not undue physical suffering.

So under both of these arguments, forcing him to endure 'unbearable suffering' with no prospect of it ending does seem unnecessarily cruel.

Of course it would have been better for him to stand trial and there should be a thorough inquest.
 

Bazzer

Active Member
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.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
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.
 
OP
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Veteran
He's avoided sanction in the same way that Guy Fawkes did.

Not really.
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.
 

jowwy

Can't spell, Can't Punctuate....Who care's, Sue Me
Not really.
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.

but its spain not the UK.......in the UK we dont have euthanasia as a way out
 

AuroraSaab

Legendary Member

AndyRM

Elder Goth
I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this. Lost a leg, paralysed, used the law.

I appreciate that his victims families wanted him to be prosecuted, but what, really, would that have done? Essentially torture the guy for the rest of his life.

Nobody is a winner here.
 

All uphill

Active Member
I guess the answer depends on what you think the justice system is for: revenge, deterrent, publicity for victims and their families, protection of society or reform. Could be all of the above.

For me justice and incarceration should be to protect society and to reform offenders, so I have no problem with this decision.
 
Last edited:

Julia9054

Regular
I appreciate that his victims families wanted him to be prosecuted, but what, really, would that have done?
It would give the victims closure.
He could have been allowed to utilise the country's euthanasia laws after the trial.
Justice isn't just about seeing the accused get a fair sentence. There is no fair sentence if you are the victim of such a crime which is why all civilised societies have a justice system and don't just allow victims to decide what happens to perpetrators.
Your day in court is a formal acknowledgement of the harms you have suffered at the hands of the perpetrator and an official apportioning of blame.
 
Top Bottom