[embedyt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkJSJGKAlos[/embedyt]
Marquel, TPVs NYTimes Filosofy Section correspondent, was reading the wikipedia entry for Brutus, when he decided to read instead, Trial to Begin for a Millionaire Who Calls Her Son’s Death ‘Altruistic Filicide’ .
Marquel, TPVs NYTimes Filosofy Section correspondent, was reading the wikipedia entry for Brutus, when he decided to read instead, Trial to Begin for a Millionaire Who Calls Her Son’s Death ‘Altruistic Filicide’ .
Gigi Jordan has called the death of her 8-year-old son a mercy killing, meant to keep him from his father, who she said was abusive.
Marquel pondered the case and thought that mercy killings were reserved for terminally ill patients who faced months of unremitting torturous suffering, whose close relatives, usually a spouse, killed to spare them the meaningless suffering at the end of their lives. But no, here is a mature mother who claims she killed her eight year old boy to avoid him ending up in the custody of an allegedly perverted and violent biological father. The natural question, Marquel assumed, was, what alternatives are available?
It seems the mother claims there was a hit man after her and, once she were dead, the child would end up in the hands of a monster. Again, no alternatives? She seems to have been wealthy enough to hire a security team, but death came more easily.
Marquel was fascinated by this apparent extension of the mercy killing concept. For what could you be excused from criminal liability? Marquel went to the bar association to have a talk with the experts.
“Can somebody claim mercy killing to save their child from some horrible possibilities?” I asked.
“Usually, it’s not even a defense. It just encourages the judge to be more sympathetic in sentencing.” I was told by an elderly, but experienced, criminal lawyer. “But we are promoting its use as a defense because we think it could do a lot of good.”
“Who is we?” I asked.
“The criminal lawyers. We have several cases around the country pending and we hope the courts will adopt it.” He explained.
“What kinds of cases?” I questioned.
“We have one in the Midwest. A mother killed her son because he was growing so fast none of his clothes fit. To save him the embarrassment, she smothered him. We call it altruistic mercy killing to emphasize it was done for the child’s own good.” He said.
“I see, any others?” I asked.
“Yes, a child in California. Couldn’t stand spinach or broccoli. She’d made a nice casserole that evening with both vegetables. To save him the misery of having to eat spinach, she killed him and put him in the freezer. Didn’t tell her husband because she didn’t want to ruin the dinner for him. A very thoughtful person.” He asserted.
“Any others?” I wondered.
“There are actually quite a few. A mother in Chicago killed her daughter because she was having so much trouble with her homework. She couldn’t stand to see her suffer. ‘Now she’s at peace with no homework,’ she said when she called 911.”
“This is nuts,” I said, “it’s just plain murder. It’s crazy!” I exclaimed.
“No. No. That’s a different defense. With insanity, you can’t distinguish right and wrong. With altruistic mercy killing, you do something you know is wrong for a greater good. It has a lot of social utility.” He insisted.
“Such as?” I wondered.
“Let’s say a family can’t afford college. They’ve got enough maybe to pay for one kid. But they’ve got five. To save the shame of four uneducated kids and one college graduate, this would permit getting rid of the four with the slimmest chance of success and you’re left with a winner. That’s a story with a happy ending.” He asserted.
“You really think so?” I asked.
“Well sure. There’s a case in Boston. Mother left the father for another man. The other man didn’t want children…”
“Altruistic mercy killing?” I interrupted.
“Exactly. To spare the kids the horror of being unwanted, and as an added benefit, give her boyfriend the life he wanted, she electrocuted four kids, connected in series to save power, and moved in with him.”
“You really think this will fly?” I asked.
“With time and pressure. We have a Twitter hash, altruisticmercykilling, and the numbers are growing.” He said.
“A lot of parents who don’t like kids,” I surmised.
“Au contraire,” he said, “these parents treasure their kids. So much they can’t stand their suffering.” He asserted.
“They kill them cause they love them. Too much.”
“Now you’ve got it,” he said.
“That’s tough love.”
***
BY MARQUEL: I Love You to Death. Now Die
[embedyt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGNvAcSYMYQ[/embedyt]
how weird
I am speechless
I don’t know what to say other than “crazy shit”
crazy white shit
M, where do you find all this news
In the Times. Click on the link
weird but funny. Marquel funny
They must not have children
I don’t think those lawyers get it, in these kinds of “mercy killings” the person relieved of suffering is the parent. See, that works.
And if you feel the need to blame, you can blame liberals and their regulations. Used to be when a parent couldn’t stand it any more, they’d send their kid to work, nothing like a 16 hour shift, waist deep in freezing water in a silver mine, to calm a fidgety pre-teen. Not to mention the money.
Nanny state regulations, it’s getting to where you can hardly hit a kid worth a damn without some case worker asking about the bruises.
So, you get what you ask for – good compassionate parents who only want the best for themselves are left with no good choices.
Of course it doesn’t help that they’re all also crazy.