All things considered, a coathanger is safer

Just looking for a point of clarity from the legal-eagles...

Where the legislation says "any person", can that also include no person? That is, in context, does "any" refer to one or more, or does it refer to zero or more.

ETA: 17.8K!
 
In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.
Click to expand...
Straight Dope
 
It would be silly to ollegalize suicide, as the criminal would be too dead (likely as a result of suicide) to prosecute.

I think you guys mean to be discussing attempted suicide. :)
 
marksman said:
It would be silly to ollegalize suicide, as the criminal would be too dead (likely as a result of suicide) to prosecute.

I think you guys mean to be discussing attempted suicide. :)
Click to expand...
As a method of reducing the public tax liability, I think The State might be tempted to take a more proactive approach.

Example: hold a lottery for persons to buy tickets allowing them the right to leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, unimpeded, the Verazanno Narrows Bridge, George Washington Bridge, or other suitable gravity assisted suicide venues.

Printed (in bold, large font) on the back of each ticket would be a 1-800 number for suicide prevention counselling, similar to some Lottery tickets' fine print admonitions against addictive gambling.

I am an idea man. They just keep coming to me.

*ding*

"Premixed tuna salad. Feed the fish mayonaise! Call Starkist!" :D

DR
 
slingblade said:
Actually, I think that's too precise. From what I've heard, she has to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong. She has to be unable to understand that what she did was wrong.

That is not the same as saying what she did was wrong, although I certainly think it was. And just about any reasonable person would think it wrong. But I've seen plenty of cases where someone did something no one reasonable would think right to do, yet the perpetrator called the police him- or herself afterward. That's enough right there, from what I can tell, to prove they knew what they'd done was wrong, no matter how bizarre it was.

So she doesn't have to have known she was killing a living being--I think she knew that, since we don't try to kill the dead. She just has to have had no notion that what she'd done would be wrong, to have a chance at an insanity defense.

I think.
Click to expand...

Okay. Then look at this from the OP link:

After Skinner pulled the trigger, she called 911 and told the operator she had gotten into an argument with a man named Travis, who then shot her in the stomach.
Click to expand...

When she called 911, she said "Travis" did it. Sounds to me like she knew what she did was wrong. And she had the presence of mind to try to frame someone else for it.
 
Luke T. said:
Okay. Then look at this from the OP link:

When she called 911, she said "Travis" did it. Sounds to me like she knew what she did was wrong. And she had the presence of mind to try to frame someone else for it.
Click to expand...
Susan Smith accusing some chimerical black man of drowning her two kids, for fifty, Alex. :(

No matter how I look at it, this story is filled with sadness and despair. :(

DR
 
wastepanel said:
I'm telling you guys. She was charged with the wrong statute, and there will be murder charges or something of the sort added on.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right. After all, wasn't California "Father & Husband of the Year," Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his unborn child as well?
 
Mephisto said:
I'm sure you're right. After all, wasn't California "Father & Husband of the Year," Scott Peterson was charged with the murder of his unborn child as well?
Click to expand...
Different state, possibly different statutes. That case convinced me that Sean Hannity was an unethical shill.

DR
 
Darat said:
It's still criminal in the USA? I am shocked.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? My understanding was otherwise.

Darat said:
Personal freedom.
Click to expand...

And in general I would tend to agree that it is not the business of the state to protect one from oneself, but in suicide I would make an exception as the person is demonstratably not in their right mind.
 
marksman said:
It would be silly to ollegalize suicide, as the criminal would be too dead (likely as a result of suicide) to prosecute.

I think you guys mean to be discussing attempted suicide. :)
Click to expand...

I believe, and someone more versed in the law is certainly free to correct me, that the purpose of making it illegal would be to give police the right to intervene, not to punish the would-be suicide.
 
How did we get into this suicide discussion derail? It seems pretty clear that the woman was not trying to kill herself, only the baby. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
 
BPSCG said:
How did we get into this suicide discussion derail? It seems pretty clear that the woman was not trying to kill herself, only the baby. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
Click to expand...
The harm to self theme easily transitions to suicide attempt, since the VA court originally could find no statute to charge her with for shooting herself, harming herself, the fetus being in their eye a part of that self.

DR
 
Mycroft said:
Please don't tell lies about my opinions.
Click to expand...

(cough)

Mycroft said:
Even so one would think that shooting oneself would be against the law. Or maybe performing a late-term abortion, or practicing medicine without a license.
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
When was suicide de-criminalized?

Why shouldn't it be illegal?
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
Do you have a source for that? My understanding was otherwise.



And in general I would tend to agree that it is not the business of the state to protect one from oneself, but in suicide I would make an exception as the person is demonstratably not in their right mind.
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
I believe, and someone more versed in the law is certainly free to correct me, that the purpose of making it illegal would be to give police the right to intervene, not to punish the would-be suicide.
Click to expand...

You are not arguing that the woman was trying to commit suicide?
 
CFLarsen said:
(cough)
You are not arguing that the woman was trying to commit suicide?
Click to expand...
That isn't how I read his general theme, that she was trying to commit suicide. The discussions seemed to progress there, as I noted above, to the general case of self harm of which suicide is a subset.

FWIW: I disagree with Mycroft's suggestion that the state should interfere in the person's rights to self immolation per this line
in suicide, I would make an exception as the person is demonstratably not in their right mind.
Click to expand...
Some people, to include the recently departed Hunter S Thompson, resort to suicide via a fairly rational (if unfortunately gloomy) assessment of the value of continued life.

DR
 
CFLarsen said:
(cough)









You are not arguing that the woman was trying to commit suicide?
Click to expand...

Seems obvious to me that he isn't. He is just saying there seems to be a menu of items she could be charged with. For example, a bank robber dropping a bag of cash on his way out of the bank gets off the bank robbery charge on a technicality, but he can still be charged with littering. Doesn't mean anyone is saying he was trying to litter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom