plasticwrap

It seems like an odd thing to be pleased about but I'm also pleased that he wasn't found guilty. Everyday when I read the updates on stuff I felt like crying. Couldn't imagine what I would do in the same situation. Glad that I wasn't on the jury. The whole case was so sad. Poor family. I hope that they can put all this behind them.

Sorry, I disagree. I think he should have been found guilty. He made the legal test for murder. Yes, I know it's a really bad situation, but under our new Sentencing Act 2002 there is room to grant very light sentences for murder, ie, under 2 years if there are circumstances that warrant it. I just think that it sends the wrong message that because his daughter was brain damaged, then what he did was ok. It raises too many issues about taking the law and health into your own hands. How damaged is damaged enough to enable you to murder your children?

D'ya reckon he did make the legal requirement for it though? He sounded (from the bits and pieces I've seen on TV and in the papers) to have been so distraught at the time that he might have reached a legal view of incapacity.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of it, I have to say - what is the legal limit on distress as a mitigating factor? He didn't sound like he was mentally himself to me, so what's the capability test?

There's a couple - he may not have had the requisite mens rea (guilty mind) or he could have argued insanity which would require him to have a "disease of the mind". He'd have to argue he wasn't in his right mind at the time. I haven't followed the arguments made in court but I don't think they argued insanity. It's a terrible thing to happen, but I think that he admitted killing her and he called the funeral home which shows premeditation. There is provision in the Sentencing Act 2002 to give lenient sentences (less than 2 year) for murder where there are special circumstances. I just think that what he did was murder, if you say it's ok cos his daughter was disabled then that sends the wrong message. It's a personal opinion.

D'ya reckon they could argue abortion, given she only had the brain of a 13-wk-old fetus?

nah - too big a can of worms with that one. Also a stretch of definition :).

comparing it to more everyday stuff, if she didn't need life support then it couldn't be switched off, and euthanasia isn't an option yet. I think if it was they would have had a decent case for it perhaps? I don't know what her distress levels for everyday experience might have been.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that do-it-yerself abortions are illegal, aren't they? For pretty obvious health reasons.

I think you're both right from different perspectives - the compassionate thing to do is what was done, but I'm not to keen on the courts doing things that are legally woolly.

Yes, you know I'm actually coming around on this issue. I think you're right, it sets a dangerous precedent and it is also uncomfortably emotional, as a verdict. The law shouldn't be emotional.

I guess I'm just pleased that someone who is manifestly no danger to society at large isn't going to be imprisoned, with all the associated costs and risks.

Perhaps a conviction and home detention would have been more appropriate?

I have loved your site for its useful and funny content and simple design.

Dallas hotels

Vienna hotels

Puerto Vallarta hotels

Phoenix hotels

Vancouver hotels

Venice hotels

Buenos Aires hotels

Shanghai hotels

Hamburg hotels

New Orleans hotels

Kansas City hotels

Antalya hotels