UK Prosecutor Trims Non
Prosecution Guidelines–and
Ironically, Expands Them
Part Four of Four
By Wesley J. Smith
Editor's note. This appears on
Wesley Smith's fine blog,
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke.
Thanks to suicide tourism and
the Debbie Purdy case, the
office of the public prosecutor
for England and Wales has
published final guidelines
telling would be suicide
assisters when they are more or
less likely to face prosecution.
The document strongly denies
that it is decriminalizing
assisted suicide in some cases,
and notes accurately, that it
remains against the law. But
when you tell people in advance
when they are unlikely be
prosecuted, the effect–and more
crucially, the message that
assisting is OK in some
cases–moves society strongly in
the direction of assisted
suicide permissiveness.
As originally proposed, non
prosecution would have been more
likely to apply if victims were
terminally ill, seriously
disabled, or had a degenerating
condition. That raised a real
and righteous stink that the
lives of these people were
deemed by law enforcement to be
less worthy of being protected.
Thus, in the final rule, the
"victim"–whose assisted suicide
is less likely to be
prosecuted–remains undefined.
Rather, the guidelines focus on
the motives of the suspect
without regard to why the
"victim" wanted to die. From the
guidelines:
45. A prosecution is less likely
to be required if:
-
the victim had reached a
voluntary, clear, settled
and informed decision to
commit suicide;
-
the suspect was wholly
motivated by compassion;
-
the actions of the suspect,
although sufficient to come
within the definition of the
offence, were of only minor
encouragement or assistance;
-
the suspect had sought to
dissuade the victim from
taking the course of action
which resulted in his or her
suicide;
-
the actions of the suspect
may be characterised as
reluctant encouragement or
assistance in the face of a
determined wish on the part
of the victim to commit
suicide;
-
the suspect reported the
victim's suicide to the
police and fully assisted
them in their enquiries into
the circumstances of the
suicide or the attempt and
his or her part in providing
encouragement or assistance.
This is nonsense. Even people
with the most base motives--as
in the George Delury case--will
claim that they were solely
motivated by compassion and that
they tried to dissuade the
victim. Indeed, the guidelines
write the script!
Moreover, the non prosecution
potential now applies to any
victim--perhaps even those under
18 and those with "mental
incapacity"--since prosecutors
investigating assisted suicide
in such cases are to "tend"
toward prosecution, which of
course, does not guarantee them.
…[B]y explicitly opening the
door to non prosecution over a
broader swath of suicidal
people, the seemingly more
restricted guidelines may
actually increase, rather than
lessen, the potential danger to
the vulnerable. After all,
compassion of the assister is
wholly subjective, a factor that
can be invoked out of an almost
unlimited set of circumstances.
Such is the power of the
emotional narrative to overcome
important principles and
undermine society's protection
of its most vulnerable members.
Part One
Part Two
Part Three |