The Scots Law Student

The SLS : Life and trials of learning law in Scotland

If someone kills me I want someone to check why

with 3 comments

I’m politically liberal, I believe in a small state and I believe in the right to autonomy. Therefore, you’d assume, I’d be one of those wondering “how could a bereaved mother [Kay Gilderdale] be put through the agony of a trial for attempted murder?”

In fact, I think one of the most vital things that the state should limit itself to doing is, when it finds one citizen attempting to end the life of another, to come along and ask in a comically plummy voice, “what’s going on here then?”

I was reading Gilderdale’s trial was horrific but necessary to retain a vital principle – Madeline Bunting in today’s Guardian and thought that she was really spot on. I have my own issues with assisted suicide but I think her observations are vitally important too, particularly in that it’s important not to subtly (or not) encourage people to end their own lives. I’d hope you wouldn’t tell a man on a bridge to jump, so you wouldn’t do it to an elderly relative either.

I think calls that the Gilderdale trial was a mistake are entirely wrong. I think that we need to be careful to watch who we put on trial but if someone is connected with the suspicious, non-natural death of a human being (let’s hypothetically say my death) they should damn well have to explain what they were doing. People who try to end others’ lives are not the sort of people we need to keep out of court. I don’t like the idea of accepting things which let you kill people – I don’t think it ends well.

I think if you kill someone in self defence you should have to show that it was self defence, if you were provoked you should have to show that you were provoked. Self defence lets you get away with murder, we really need to be careful with that. I think if someone claims they killed someone to end their suffering they should equally have to show that they did it to end their suffering and regardless, because every single murder victim in history was going to die eventually anyway, if they were actually OK with living in suffering that should never ever be a defence.

The problem with all of homicide defences based on the victim’s conduct (self defence, battered wife syndrome, assisted suicide etc) is that it is very hard to get the victim’s side of things afterwards. It’s hard to say you didn’t hit your wife after your murder, for example, and it’s also hard to say you didn’t consent to your death. If someone wishes to escape responsibility on the basis that you wanted to die and they were only carrying out your wishes I would humbly want someone to check that out.

We don’t have a legal right to die, we have an absolute certainty to it. What we do have is a right to life. If someone dies, potentially in very violent circumstances, it is a big deal and we should accept that. There are many reason that a carer might kill their patient, or even a mother might kill her daughter which have nothing to do with dignity or choice or love or anything else that is good.

I would hate for my murderer to get off because I was sick. Don’t just take their word for it.

4dd6465fc78a86d0987870f88dffcb9c


Written by scotslawstudent

February 8, 2010 at 9:16 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hear, Hear!

    Iain Nisbet

    February 9, 2010 at 9:40 pm

  2. “Are you a danger to kids? I’m not, honest. Just putting that out there.” Of course you’ll be able to prove that in court? Just as you want (previous post) others to prove that they did not murder someone.
    Here was me (old sod) thinking that you had to be proved guilty by the prosecution. But then, after twelve years plus of New Labour education you youngsters think it’s correct that court is where you have to prove your innocence.

    Alec

    February 10, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    • I do see your point and I don’t even think a court would want to declare that (no legal system has an “innocent” verdict for this reason) but wanting people involved in suspicious deaths to prove their defence is really just a restatement of the law on criminal defences – the onus of proof doesn’t actually shift at any point but realistically you can’t rely on the prosecution to show your actions were justified. If you say “I only did the actions I did because it was their wish to die and therefore I should not be jailed” then I think you should expect to need to support it (and that the prosecution will seek to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt). Court is just the traditional place to test evidence in murder trials.

      On the other hand if someone says I was a threat to children I would expect them to prove why I was. I see it as not presuming guilt in expecting a similar amount of checking to go into allegations of child abuse before the ISA would use them to prevent someone from working. I’m against the idea of giving licences of child safety in the first place because I think it ignores the problem of first time offenders while giving a false sense of security but since we have them I think they should be accurate.

      scotslawstudent

      February 10, 2010 at 11:01 pm


Leave a Reply