OT: Game, Set, Match--Legal murder by starvation

[Puke]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
well, your off the sniper list.

i hope im still on it. i have it comming.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

yep, your on it.

i wonder if i'm scaring an gov spooks?

[ October 15, 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Loser]

Nice closing to that rant Puke.

[ October 16, 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: Loser ]

[Krsqk]

Sometimes, Cthulhu needs to have his little nappy interrupted. *not sure whether a smiley is appropriate here*

[Ran-Taro]

Really, it's just a whole mess of stupidity.

The law should generally seek to avoid situations where someone is forced into such an awful situation, and would therefore benefit greatly from someone else's death.

The court should be able to enforce a divorce between them, make her parents her legal guardians, and remove any right the husband has to the money.

Then he could go on with his life without being forced to be married to someone he obviously doesn't love anymore, and she doesn't have to die for him to do it.

And, of course, someone who actually cares for her can make decisions in her best interests, with her own money (and theirs when it runs out).

Unless all that happens first I think any argument over whether it is better to keep her alive or not is totally mired in counter-productiveness. In fact it's a useless argument unless she is being cared for by public money - her parents should be able to spend her (or their) private money to keep her alive if they wish to.

And her compensation money definatley shouldn't go to anyone who decides to kill her. That is just wrong.

I don't see why the legislature isn't doing something to make this happen, if the courts can't.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
The law should generally seek to avoid situations where someone is forced into such an awful situation..

That is not what the law is for, here in the U.S.

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
The court should be able to enforce a divorce between them...

Giving 'the court' this power only adds to the number of difficult decisions 'the court' must make. Here in the U.S. we believe freedom and happiness come from limited the powers of the government, not making a government that can solve all our problems. This is the major difference between our government and the more statist democracies of the old and colonial world.

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
someone who actually cares for her can make decisions in her best interests...

Again, you are assuming a third party to possess and unquestionable wisdom and benevolence. How would the court know? There are rules for what can and cannot be shown as evidence in court and those rules are there for a reason.

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
Unless all that happens first I think any argument over whether it is better to keep her alive or not is totally mired in counter-productiveness... And her compensation money definatley shouldn't go to anyone who decides to kill her.

The biggest question here is whether or not she is still alive. That is what the court had to decide, because that makes all the other decisions. 'The court' apparently determined that she was no longer alive. That's what the judicial system is for, making such decisions.

Originally posted by Ran-Taro:
I don't see why the legislature isn't doing something to make this happen, if the courts can't.

Because that is not what the legislature is for. Division of power is essential to the U.S. government. If every branch could do what every other branch could do we'd simply have three branches in constant conflict with each other, not the working-together checks-and-balances system that has sustained the longest standing government in the world (based on the document it was founded on, the consistency of it's operation).

Sure the separate branches step on each other's toes every now and then, but it is important for them to pick their fights very carefully. Else there'd be a 'cry wolf' scenario.

All that said, this is a terrible situation. Without knowing all the details it might not even be possible to understand the decisions made by the court. Considering the 'one sided' nature of what we've heard so far I doubt we've got the whole story.

All in all, I'm just glad I do not need to make a decision or declare my allegiance to a side on this one.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
is it not his right. He is the husband. As she cannot think for herself.

It is just messy and all parties involved are hurt.

I think I can understand his wishing to end this.

I hope I never do understand.

I think the only issue is she should not have made the bad judgement to have married the guy in the first place or she should have had the good judgement to have written a living will -especially if her husband is truly as evil as her parents say he is. Once you're married, though, - unless you've gone to the trouble to right a will - a spouse is responsible for you in life and death situations and I really don't see what NEW legal rights the parents should be given.

I am going out on a limb here, but it's seems like those that want the courts to step in would be the same ones that would complain about "activist judges".