Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244731/Mo...
I'm really at a loss on this one. On the one hand I really understand what she was doing but on the other it just feels wrong....horrible.
I'm really at a loss on this one. On the one hand I really understand what she was doing but on the other it just feels wrong....horrible.
st_files said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244731/Mo...
I'm really at a loss on this one. On the one hand I really understand what she was doing but on the other it just feels wrong....horrible.
Especially when you take into account that recent story of the guy who was paralysed / in a coma (?) but who was actually wide awake and fully aware of everything going on around him.I'm really at a loss on this one. On the one hand I really understand what she was doing but on the other it just feels wrong....horrible.
G_T said:
9 years minimum sentence for a mother who ends her son's suffering.
Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
but.....she knew what she was doing was illegal and she ran the risk of being done for murder.....Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
st_files said:
G_T said:
9 years minimum sentence for a mother who ends her son's suffering.
Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
but.....she knew what she was doing was illegal and she ran the risk of being done for murder.....Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
I would do the same for my partner if she ever was in the same scenario. I fail to see why any living thing should undergo such tremendous suffering just because they had the misfortune to be born a human being.
Edited by G_T on Wednesday 20th January 17:10
G_T said:
st_files said:
G_T said:
9 years minimum sentence for a mother who ends her son's suffering.
Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
but.....she knew what she was doing was illegal and she ran the risk of being done for murder.....Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
I would do the same for my partner if she ever was in the same scenario. I fail to see why any living thing should undergo such tremendous suffering just because they had the misfortune to be born a human being.
Edited by G_T on Wednesday 20th January 17:10
Edited by G_T on Wednesday 20th January 17:10
G_T said:
st_files said:
G_T said:
9 years minimum sentence for a mother who ends her son's suffering.
Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
but.....she knew what she was doing was illegal and she ran the risk of being done for murder.....Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
I would do the same for my partner if she ever was in the same scenario. I fail to see why any living thing should undergo such tremendous suffering just because they had the misfortune to be born a human being.
Edited by G_T on Wednesday 20th January 17:10
G_T said:
9 years minimum sentence for a mother who ends her son's suffering.
Possibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
you're assuming he was suffering thoughPossibly the most outrageous miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in the UK.
Absolutely disgusting inconsistency in sentencing for this sort of crime.
As I said above your post, what about the recent case of that guy they thought was in a coma only for them to eventually be able to communicate with him?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576311,00.html
Fox News said:
. "I shall never forget the day when they discovered what was truly wrong with me — it was my second birth. I want to read, talk with my friends via the computer and enjoy life now people know I am not dead."
Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 20th January 17:22
These type of sentances have nothing to do with justice. No amount of time inside will punish more than what she has to carry.
They are designed to say to everyone that no matter the circumstances murder is just that, What gauls people is that some scum will get less for premeditated attacks on complete strangers when all this woman did was end her sons suffering.
They are designed to say to everyone that no matter the circumstances murder is just that, What gauls people is that some scum will get less for premeditated attacks on complete strangers when all this woman did was end her sons suffering.
It's a disgrace.
Why we are permitted to put an animal out of it's misery to end the suffering YET must watch human beings go throug a living hell without being able to end it for them, is beyond me.
Personally, I fail to see how anyone has the right to tell me whether or not I can die with minimal suffering or must stay alive in such a condition. It is incredible arrogance in my view, and is based upon the law of God and thus is inherently wrong to my mind.
Why we are permitted to put an animal out of it's misery to end the suffering YET must watch human beings go throug a living hell without being able to end it for them, is beyond me.
Personally, I fail to see how anyone has the right to tell me whether or not I can die with minimal suffering or must stay alive in such a condition. It is incredible arrogance in my view, and is based upon the law of God and thus is inherently wrong to my mind.
Jasandjules said:
It's a disgrace.
Why we are permitted to put an animal out of it's misery to end the suffering YET must watch human beings go throug a living hell without being able to end it for them, is beyond me.
Personally, I fail to see how anyone has the right to tell me whether or not I can die with minimal suffering or must stay alive in such a condition. It is incredible arrogance in my view, and is based upon the law of God and thus is inherently wrong to my mind.
Which would be fine had he actually communicated he wanted to end hs life, but he hadn't. The guy in the above article wants to enjoy his life now he can communicate with people, this lad could have been the same for all we know.Why we are permitted to put an animal out of it's misery to end the suffering YET must watch human beings go throug a living hell without being able to end it for them, is beyond me.
Personally, I fail to see how anyone has the right to tell me whether or not I can die with minimal suffering or must stay alive in such a condition. It is incredible arrogance in my view, and is based upon the law of God and thus is inherently wrong to my mind.
Her other son gave an impassioned defence of his mother outside the court, and accused the authorities of failing in their duty towards his brother. Yes she broke the law, and condoning that is a slippery slope. Nevertheless, in this instance it seems a suspended sentence might have been more appropriate. It's hardly as if she is a risk to society now is it?
Dogs can't communicate their desire to live or die either, and yet putting them down is considered to be an act of mercy because we don't want them to suffer. But doing the same to someone you love is thought of as murder.
I just never manage to get my head around that part. You adore the family pet, you treat it as another member of the family, and then when something happens that makes it very ill you put it down because you want it to be at peace. For all you know the dog or the cat or whatever desperately wanted to live despite whatever was wrong with it, but they can't communicate that, so off to the big farm it goes.
But when we do the same thing to people, suddenly it's a crime and the person should be locked up to deter other people.
What did she gain from him dying? Nothing. If it was cold hearted murder, or if she had done it because he owned a mansion and she was going to inherit it with his death, then I could understand sending her to prison. But she did what any parent would do, she did what she thought was best for her son. She has to spend the rest of her life living with the knowledge that her child is dead, and that half the country probably thinks she's a murderer. That's punishment enough IMO.
I just never manage to get my head around that part. You adore the family pet, you treat it as another member of the family, and then when something happens that makes it very ill you put it down because you want it to be at peace. For all you know the dog or the cat or whatever desperately wanted to live despite whatever was wrong with it, but they can't communicate that, so off to the big farm it goes.
But when we do the same thing to people, suddenly it's a crime and the person should be locked up to deter other people.
What did she gain from him dying? Nothing. If it was cold hearted murder, or if she had done it because he owned a mansion and she was going to inherit it with his death, then I could understand sending her to prison. But she did what any parent would do, she did what she thought was best for her son. She has to spend the rest of her life living with the knowledge that her child is dead, and that half the country probably thinks she's a murderer. That's punishment enough IMO.
The people making judgements are insane. Its time the Athiests declared a lack of co-operation with the subhuman species and refused to recognised the imaginary freind driven court system. It becomes more and more evident every day that we live in a society run by people with diseased minds. Time for independance for athiests.
MentalSarcasm said:
Dogs can't communicate their desire to live or die either, and yet putting them down is considered to be an act of mercy because we don't want them to suffer. But doing the same to someone you love is thought of as murder.
I just never manage to get my head around that part. You adore the family pet, you treat it as another member of the family, and then when something happens that makes it very ill you put it down because you want it to be at peace. For all you know the dog or the cat or whatever desperately wanted to live despite whatever was wrong with it, but they can't communicate that, so off to the big farm it goes.
But when we do the same thing to people, suddenly it's a crime and the person should be locked up to deter other people.
What did she gain from him dying? Nothing. If it was cold hearted murder, or if she had done it because he owned a mansion and she was going to inherit it with his death, then I could understand sending her to prison. But she did what any parent would do, she did what she thought was best for her son. She has to spend the rest of her life living with the knowledge that her child is dead, and that half the country probably thinks she's a murderer. That's punishment enough IMO.
That's probably because we don't value the life of pets equally as we do humans. We don't execute people in this country anymore but if someone winds your dog up and it bites them the police will look to have it put down. I don't agree with that.I just never manage to get my head around that part. You adore the family pet, you treat it as another member of the family, and then when something happens that makes it very ill you put it down because you want it to be at peace. For all you know the dog or the cat or whatever desperately wanted to live despite whatever was wrong with it, but they can't communicate that, so off to the big farm it goes.
But when we do the same thing to people, suddenly it's a crime and the person should be locked up to deter other people.
What did she gain from him dying? Nothing. If it was cold hearted murder, or if she had done it because he owned a mansion and she was going to inherit it with his death, then I could understand sending her to prison. But she did what any parent would do, she did what she thought was best for her son. She has to spend the rest of her life living with the knowledge that her child is dead, and that half the country probably thinks she's a murderer. That's punishment enough IMO.
It's been proven that people in these sort od cases are fully aware and conscious of their surroundings, how do you know his real suffering didn't occur at the moment she began injecting him with heroin? How do you know he wasn't screaming on the inside that he wanted to live? We don't, and that's the point, we never will.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff