X-Message-Number: 9256
From: "Colin Martel" <>
Subject: Re: euthanasia prosecution 
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 08:55:56 -0500

> In this particular case there would be merit if the prosecuting
authorities 
> could clearly show that the deceased had not wanted to be given
euthanasia. 
[snip]
> householder does. This genuine policing  - one of the parties wants "the 
> law" there. 

Actually, the case HAS merit no matter what the patient wanted, since, in
Canada, euthanasia is illegal. We might not like it, but that  physician
did commit a crime, and the fact that her case did not go to trial is both
an encouraging sign of changing times and a testimony to the flexibility of
the Common Law system. Furthermore, if no procedure exists to ask for
euthanasia, some a posteriori enquiry is necessary to make sure that the
act committed was wished by all parties (as opposed to all surviving
parties).

> For example, a reverse of the contingency fee 
> arrangement: if they lose, the prosecutors have to pay all the fees they 
> have received to the defendant personally, as well as paying the
defendant's 
> legal fees.

First, Crown prosecutors usually have a fixed salary (maybe not in all
provinces, I honestly don't know about Nova Scotia), so money is not what
they're after. They want to becomes judges, or else they would be working
as defense attorneys. Second, if prosecutors had to pay the  legal fees of
the accused when they lost, they might avoid prosecuting risky cases, or
cases where the defendant's legal fees are expected to be so enormous that
the game is not worth the risk. In such a system, a rich defendant, like OJ
Simpson, might have gone untried, and he'd be free now...uh?...I mean...Oh
never mind!

Colin Martel

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9256