Mercy killings
Discussion
Not part of the current debate on Assisted Dying, but slightly related.
In the Quintshill Rail Disaster of 1915 it was reported that some of the casualties were trapped in the flames. An officer (or maybe more) was seen to be shooting those who were trapped as an act of "Mercy Killing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_di...
SD.
In the Quintshill Rail Disaster of 1915 it was reported that some of the casualties were trapped in the flames. An officer (or maybe more) was seen to be shooting those who were trapped as an act of "Mercy Killing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintinshill_rail_di...
Wikipaedia said:
On 16 May 2015, the BBC reported Colonel Robert Watson, a senior retired army officer who had served with the Royal Scots, saying that he believed that some soldiers were "probably" shot in mercy killings. The BBC said that while no official army records of the alleged shooting existed, "many reports written in the press at the time of the accident suggested that some trapped soldiers, threatened with the prospect of being burnt alive in the raging inferno, took their own lives or were shot by their officers". The colonel's remarks were recorded for a BBC Scotland documentary made to mark the centenary of the disaster, Quintinshill: Britain's Deadliest Rail Disaster.
What would the current legal status be if this happened today? Would civilian law differ from military law?SD.
I believe legally the killings would be unlawful
From the Crown Prosecution Service website
'Mercy killings' and suicide pacts in the context of 'mercy killings'
There is no definition of 'mercy killing' in statute or common law. An offender who takes the life or attempts to take the life of a victim may act on the wishes of the victim and may act out of mercy, but this does not provide a defence in law.
It is murder for a person to do an act that ends the life of another, intending to kill them, even if they do so on the basis that they are simply complying with the wishes of the other person concerned. So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making themself unconscious, a person commits murder if they then do an act that causes the death of the victim, even if they believe that they are simply carrying out the victim's express wish.
Section 4(3) of the Homicide Act 1957 defines a suicide pact as a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take their own life; nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by them in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while they have the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact. A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between them and another, who kills the other, or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website
'Mercy killings' and suicide pacts in the context of 'mercy killings'
There is no definition of 'mercy killing' in statute or common law. An offender who takes the life or attempts to take the life of a victim may act on the wishes of the victim and may act out of mercy, but this does not provide a defence in law.
It is murder for a person to do an act that ends the life of another, intending to kill them, even if they do so on the basis that they are simply complying with the wishes of the other person concerned. So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making themself unconscious, a person commits murder if they then do an act that causes the death of the victim, even if they believe that they are simply carrying out the victim's express wish.
Section 4(3) of the Homicide Act 1957 defines a suicide pact as a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take their own life; nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by them in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while they have the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact. A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between them and another, who kills the other, or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
Jamescrs said:
I believe legally the killings would be unlawful
From the Crown Prosecution Service website
'Mercy killings' and suicide pacts in the context of 'mercy killings'
There is no definition of 'mercy killing' in statute or common law. An offender who takes the life or attempts to take the life of a victim may act on the wishes of the victim and may act out of mercy, but this does not provide a defence in law.
It is murder for a person to do an act that ends the life of another, intending to kill them, even if they do so on the basis that they are simply complying with the wishes of the other person concerned. So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making themself unconscious, a person commits murder if they then do an act that causes the death of the victim, even if they believe that they are simply carrying out the victim's express wish.
Section 4(3) of the Homicide Act 1957 defines a suicide pact as a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take their own life; nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by them in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while they have the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact. A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between them and another, who kills the other, or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
Yes, you’re bang on. But it doesn’t follow that the CPS (or the Service Prosecuting Authority) would actually approve charges — especially if most of the ‘criminals’ were already dead. (Although 2012 is way before my time, politically, I think there’s recent precedent for the DPP declining to prosecute unambiguous mercy killings.)From the Crown Prosecution Service website
'Mercy killings' and suicide pacts in the context of 'mercy killings'
There is no definition of 'mercy killing' in statute or common law. An offender who takes the life or attempts to take the life of a victim may act on the wishes of the victim and may act out of mercy, but this does not provide a defence in law.
It is murder for a person to do an act that ends the life of another, intending to kill them, even if they do so on the basis that they are simply complying with the wishes of the other person concerned. So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making themself unconscious, a person commits murder if they then do an act that causes the death of the victim, even if they believe that they are simply carrying out the victim's express wish.
Section 4(3) of the Homicide Act 1957 defines a suicide pact as a common agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them, whether or not each is to take their own life; nothing done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done by them in pursuance of the pact unless it is done while they have the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact. A person, acting in pursuance of a suicide pact between them and another, who kills the other, or is a party to the other being killed by a third person, is guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
All that being said… would the decision to prosecute take into account whether or not someone expressed an informed/settled/&c wish to die? And, if so, would a mercy killing ‘in the heat of the moment’ — where this kinda consent is definitionally impossible — in fact be more likely, not less, to clear the bar for prosecution?)
Needless to say, any actual lawyers are welcome to tell me if I’m talking from my behind
I heard a story of an armed cop watching a properly trapped but conscious occupant of a crashed car burn to death.
Can't think of a more difficult moral position to find yourself in.
Awful for everybody involved.
Ultimately it's against the law, whether you'd be charged or found guilty at court I wouldn't want to guess.
Back in 1915 and I'm sure even up until relatively recently, in similar circumstances it wouldn't be uncommon.
There are a fair few anecdotes of things like this from most conflicts.
Can't think of a more difficult moral position to find yourself in.
Awful for everybody involved.
Ultimately it's against the law, whether you'd be charged or found guilty at court I wouldn't want to guess.
Back in 1915 and I'm sure even up until relatively recently, in similar circumstances it wouldn't be uncommon.
There are a fair few anecdotes of things like this from most conflicts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff