If laws consider motive in punishing “hate” crimes, why is motive seemingly less important in sentencing for mercy killing? I realize that sometimes mercy is just an excuse for someone wanting to be rid of a burden. But when it is clearly established that the killing was done for love of the “victim,” why must there be punishment? I’ve never heard of a “mercy killer” getting off with probation. It seems to me that our laws are set up to mete out punishment far more than they are to achieve justice. I don’t believe punishment and justice necessarily are the same thing. Am I wrong? Why or why not?
Three years probation, plus medical bills, for assisted suiced (not even a mercy killing): http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw98985_20040605.htm
Thanks for the link, GorillaMan. Assisted suicide, though, is not what I had in mind. I’m thinking of people who have turned off a life support, administered a shot, or otherwise directly killed a loved one to prevent further suffering. Their grief must be terrible, but I can’t see any benefit to society from punishing such people. Certainly society at large is in no danger from them, so protection is not an issue. It’s natural to say, “but there has to be some penalty.” My question is, why? The laws are there ostensibly to protect us from each other, but when a disabled loved one is trapped in a situation of intractable pain and is unable to take the necessary steps to end it him/herself, why should the law make it a crime for another to help that person out of a miserable life?
Well, in many cases, turning off life support is perfectly legal, and there are routine procedures in place for such situations. Obviously, interventionist actions such as administering drugs to stop the heart is another stage entirely, and is legal in few places. Nonetheless, I feel that, with appropriate safeguards and stringent guidelines, such actions should be permitted. So I guess I’m on the same side as you, waiting for an opposing voice…