If You Were a Juror on This Imaginary Murder Trial

In My Humble Opinion
1

The defendant is charged with 2nd Degree Murder.

The defendant, Jack, lives on a farm in a, extremely remote, woody, hilly area. On the night of the alleged murder, a severe snow/ice storm had hit the area, and the roads were impassable. If he had called an ambulance it would have been hours before one could arrive. At about 8:30 PM Jack heard horrified screams coming from his neighbor’s house across the road. He grabbed a flashlight and made his way through the ice and snow to the neighbor’s farm as fast as he could. There, he followed the screams to the neighbor’s barn, where he found the alleged victim, Jill, entangled in some farm machinery in some way [I don’t know enough about farm machinery to name a specific machine, so just work with me here mmkay?]. Jill was a widow in her late 50’s who lived alone, and whose nearest family was a stepbrother hundreds of miles away. Jack could see that Jill was bleeding horribly and in agonizing pain. A doctor has testified - based on some kind of evidence that I can’t name due to my complete ignorance of forensic medicine - that, had Jack not killed Jill, she would have lived another 3 - 4 hours, and in agonizing pain. He testified further that there was no sort of intervention that Jack could have performed that could have alleviated Jill’s suffering or prolong her life. Jack testified that Jill begged and pleaded with him, over the course of 5-10 minutes and despite his protestation, to taker her nearby rifle and killer her to, as he testified, “put her out of her misery.” Finally, as Jack testified, he could no longer bear to see her suffer, he took her hunting rifle and shot her twice through the chest, piercing her heart and killing her instantly. He then dialed 911 and explained his actions. Police and EMT’s arrived on the scene at the same time approximately two hours later, where Jack surrendered himself to police without incident and was taken into custody.

Jack’s attorneys have argued Justifiable Homicide, based on Jack’s desire to do the right thing in what was an indescribably horrible situation. The prosecution has sought 2nd Degree Murder, based on the State’s compelling interest to prevent persons from killing one another except in examples of extreme necessity in self-defense.

How does the jury find?

2

I’d find any reason I could to find him not guilty.

3

Jack Kevorkian? (Sorry)

Absolutely 100% not guilty. Jury nullification if necessary. Hung jury, if necessary. The only way I could be swayed from a not guilty vote would be an extremely convincing motive and an absolute belief that Jack was a lying piece of shit who fabricated the entire scenario presented as defense.

Frankly, accepting the story as true, I would be extremely disappointed that Jack was ever charged for criminal behavior. With all that said, I would never be seated on that jury.

4

Obviously guilty.

5

Guilty of a much lesser crime. If the prosecutor denies me that option, then not guilty.

As a good juror, I would be bound by the judge’s instructions; an awful lot would depend on what the judge allows.

(I’m also sorry to say that, in the defendant’s situation, I would not engage in a mercy killing. I’d do all I could to comfort the victim. I might even go as far as to try to render the victim unconscious via a carotid hold. I also might not, because I don’t know exactly how to do a carotid hold… But flat out killing? Nope… Not in me to do it. And, also, it’s illegal. Sorry…)

6

If she pleaded for 5-10 minutes why couldn’t Jack call the ambulance in that time frame? They may have actually been two minutes away, or maybe not, he didn’t know.

7

Not guilty of murder. Guilty of not calling 911 in the 5-10 minutes. They may have helped him with his tough decision.

8

In your opinion, does a person ever have the right to have a request for an active termination of their own life honored, under any circumstances?

For the sake of argument and in line with the spirit of the OP, let’s say Jack doesn’t have a cell phone. The ice storm took out the phone lines. What now?

Which one? Euthanasia? That’s what he’s guilty of, and it is a crime in this country. A bit lesser than Murder 2, I guess. I’m having a hard time thinking of a more fucked up crime, but I guess you’re legally correct, anyway.

9

See above. Ice storm took out the phone lines. What now?

10

This! (P.S. Did hell freeze over, cuz I just agreed with Rand Rover!)

11

I voted guilty but immediately regretted it. He is guilty of voluntary manslaughter I would say.

12

Jake-laymen SHOULD NOT be euthanizing people!

13

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it depends on what the law says.

My place as a juror is to decide whether or not Jack broke the law. Not whether or not it’s a law that should be enforced.

So does the law in this hypothetical state allow for mitigating circumstances like the OP described?

14

Really? Seriously? A person is literally torn apart by heavy machinery. You are absolutely certain that, short of devine intervention, this person will die. There is no help on the way. They are in excrutiating agony. They ask you to take their weapon and end their life, to spare themselves hours of agony.

“Sorry, I’m just a layman. I have no professional training in this kind of thing.”

No, compassion doesn’t need professional training. The person is going to die. They are suffering. It does not require a specialized degree to understand that if someone is in pain and dying, and you have no way to save them and no way to end their pain without ending their life and they ask you to end their life, you should honor their wishes.

This is not a “you” problem. This is a “them” problem. And they have asked you for help in ending it.

15

Guilty.

His only responsibility was to call 911 and to provide first aid if possible (sounds like it wasn’t possible).

Jill’s pleas do not provide Jack with a legitimate reason to break the law. Whether she suffers for 2 minutes or 2 hours will not change the outcome, she is probably going to die but it is not up to Jack to decide when.

16

According to the OP…

“Would die in 3-4 hours”

“Ambulance arrived on the scene two hours later”

GUILTY

Laymen shouldn’t be making such decisions, and no matter what - he should have called 911 before taking any action at all.

17

Agreed. That’s Jill’s decision. Unfortunately, Jill fell into a thresher and her body is basically ground beef below the waist. Jill can’t walk over and grab her revolver from the bench she left it on. She can’t kill herself, so she’s asking for your help. Suppose her arms and hands are still working. Would it be immoral to hand Jill her weapon and let her take care of the situation on her own? Or are we best to leave it to God? Sorry, Jill. Only God knows why you’re dying in the thresher. He’s usually merciful, so you must have really fucked up.

Nobody stated religious reasons for their argument, so I may be showing my ass here, but on the other hand, nobody has explained their position either.

Let’s take the OP as an allegory for a terminal illness of your choice, because I don’t see much difference and the latter is more common in these types of debates.

I’ll start with ALS. It’s a pretty fucking dismal disease. Half of those diagnosed are dead in three years. 90% are dead in six years. In the mean time, their life is pretty close to hell on earth. Quality of life becomes oxymoronic within a year or two. Death is almost certain and pain and suffering are 100% certain. Why do we, as a community of law makers, get to decide the fate of an individual on a painful path to death? Why do we get to choose that them ending that downward spiral to an inevitable death is wrong? How can we legislate a decision to live to a miserable end?

Well, we make laws and laws don’t have to be moral. Then we hide behind the laws we made, because, you know, “the law is the law.”

It’s such a rotting cesspool of dishonesty and deceit that it disgusts me. If I think about it long enough, it literally makes me nauseous. Everyone hides behind the law and the law is bullshit. People in the United States are guaranteed the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They are not guaranteed to achieve any of those, so why should they be denied the right to abandon any of them?

When you’re done pursuing life in this country, you’re deemed incompetent and forced to stay alive. Nobody gives a shit if you’re happy. They don’t give a shit if you’re no more free in a hospital room than a criminal is free in their prison cell. They don’t even care if your life is perpetual pain. Literally, un-ending pain does not give you the right to end your life.

Hell, we’re giving away our freedom like Halloween candy. Been through an airport lately? However, you are not free to give up your life. I have only three words to address that. Fuck that shit.

18

He made a decision that wasn’t his to make. He should have called 911 immediately and asked them what to do. If the police got there within 2 hours, then an ambulance could have gotten there at least as quickly. If she would have lived another 3-4 hours, he prevented her from receiving 1-2 hours of potentially-lifesaving medical treatment.

I think he should be punished for his lack of judgment (community service and probation, perhaps), but I don’t think he’s a criminal. He’s definitely not a murderer, he’s just pretty stupid. I’d vote not-guilty if I knew the sentence for finding him guilty would include any jail time. Someone like this doesn’t deserve prison.

19

As a layman you do not have the expertise to determine that someone is obviously dying. It’s not compassion to kill someone who might have lived because, in the moment, they think they’d rather be dead than live like that.

Though, in this case, the question is whether it is Murder 2, and I say absolutely not. It is exactly what the defense is arguing–justifiable homicide. There is no malice involved, and no reckless endangerment.

20

This, too. Most people who survive horrific accidents and end up paralyzed or missing limbs are *enormously *grateful that they didn’t die, after the fact. The human survival instinct and our ability to adapt are *very *strong. I myself have had moments of pain where I wanted to die (kidney stone), but in retrospect I’m very glad I’m still alive.

To capitalize on BigT’s point, humans aren’t dogs or horses who are only capable of living in the present moment. A couple hours of intense pain would have practically anybody begging to die. That doesn’t mean you should give in and kill them, though. The victim in this case is substantially different than someone with a terminal illness that’s been evaluated and diagnosed by a doctor. A farmer dude doesn’t have the medical expertise to judge whether she’s going to die within the next 5 minutes or the next 500 minutes.