Assisted Suicide

Arthur Barnes said:Well, that doesn't apply to my specific scenario—where I actually have concrete proof (audio, video, whatever you need!) that the "victim" gave me their full consent to end it.

But you could have drugged them or used threats...
If euthanasia were ever legalized, it would only be acceptable if handled through a formal institution—kind of like how we handle a "living will" here in the States—where you provide ADVANCE consent for a FUTURE condition, essentially giving "Person A" permission to perform "Action B" under "Specific Circumstances." It’s all strictly verified... so everyone knows exactly who can do what, and when..
As for the act itself—personally, I see it as murder, regardless of any "justifications"—because:
taking a life = murder
euthanasia = taking a life
euthanasia = murder.
If something like this were ever permitted by law—God forbid!—the potential for abuse would be massive. Isn't it better to prevent the mistake than try to fix it? You can't bring someone back once they're gone; if it turns out someone was killed against their will... all you've done is punish the perpetrator, while the victim stays dead.
It's the exact same issue we face with the death penalty—what happens if they execute an innocent person? Oops? Not really! But hey, that's a whole other conversation.

hollowgull14 said:...but if you just take a moment to read through the thread, you'll see we have already covered this issue.

😬
I didn't quite find the motivation to read it all just now... though, I suppose, I should probably get to it.

Whether this qualifies as assisted suicide or not really boils down to one thing:
-is the request entirely personal, and is the individual making it capable of providing valid statements and making sound decisions?
-a child, an incapacitated person, or someone with diminished mental capacity cannot provide such a statement.
(in those instances, we would be looking at murder or first-degree murder instead.)
-the petitioner must fully grasp the consequences of their "request."
-the decision to submit the request has to be unequivocal and without any hesitation.

The motives are just as critical:
-illness, advanced age, chronic pain, and things like that—situations where a victim develops a persistent, recurring plea for death due to unbearable, permanent suffering, the awareness of imminent mortality, and so on.

This specific request is what distinguishes this type of assisted suicide from euthanasia, because in euthanasia, a terminally ill patient often lacks the capacity to make a request of this caliber.

Personally, I think it would make more sense if the term used in Section 94 was "homicide upon request" rather than "on demand"... because when someone is that sick, they are far more likely to "beg" someone else to end their misery than they are to formally "demand" anything in such a state.
Besides, you have to wonder how anyone could actually force someone to fulfill an obligation based on a request made while in that kind of condition.
The whole concept of assisted suicide is quite strange, and frankly, trying to prove it otherwise is a lost cause.

Arthur Barnes said:If you kill someone at their explicit and serious request, you’re looking at one to eight years in prison.

I don't get it.
Say you have video proof that she, for example, asked you to end it all. And then you actually do it. What determines how long you sit in a cell? The method? Probably. That feels totally arbitrary to me. It makes zero difference if you stab her once, forty-six times, or twenty-three times and toss her off a building in Chicago. Just because you're a bit unhinged, you get eight years, while some jerk who poisons her lunch only gets one? Is that really how it works?...

The idea is that you killed them for one specific reason: they wanted it. No hidden agendas, no shady motives, no greed involved.
So what actually causes that massive gap? Those seven extra years...

I just wanted to point out that this law was essentially lifted straight from the German and Austrian legal codes on K Street. When it comes to jurisprudence and legal theory—which the Germans likely modeled their own systems after—they are arguably the most dominant force in the world. What that implies is that they probably drafted this with far more insight and intelligence than anyone here, and there’s a reason for that.

x_x thanks a ton. You really helped me out. Now that I know Germans are way sharper and more on the ball, I'm totally over it...

Sean Hernandez5 said:Just letting you know that this law was lifted straight from German and Austrian legal codes. When it comes to jurisprudence, the Germans are likely the most dominant force—probably because Austria modeled their own system after them. That means they're far more sophisticated than any of us here; there's a reason it's written that way.

If you understand German history, you'll see why they’re so incredibly restrictive regarding euthanasia. The Dutch are much more liberal about it, allowing voluntary euthanasia under certain conditions.

The debate started because doctors have lost all sense of proportion. Modern medicine can keep someone alive long after it ceases to make sense, and in the West, we certainly have the resources to do it. Some hospitals in Germany are now offering sedation—eliminating consciousness and pain while death occurs. Legally, it isn't euthanasia, but practically, it is. If you ask me, being unconscious without any hope of return is functionally the same as being dead.

The reasons for this law in America are obvious: Christian ethics. Try to eliminate those, and you'll quickly find where the strongest resistance comes from. 😉

stormylynx14, I’d give that response a solid A+.

I honestly don't see why we're debating euthanasia or the specifics of the law right now.
Personally, I'm in favor of euthanasia, but that wasn't even what this thread was about.
The actual question was whether the law itself is poorly drafted.
Maybe it is, but that isn't my concern. We're trained to interpret and enforce the law, not debate its existence; I'll leave those discussions to legal scholars and legislators (and I can say with 100% certainty I wouldn't be either).
p.s. I wasn't suggesting that Germans are somehow smarter than us; I was simply noting that those were the conclusions drawn by legal experts who actually know what they're talking about (regardless of which country they're from).

I'm really curious if I could get an answer to the question I asked. I'm looking for the experts here to weigh in... basically, what determines the length of a prison sentence if the crime happens under the specific circumstances I laid out? Thanks, see ya...

I mentioned this in my second post—the sentence for this is actually lighter than standard murder because it assumes the perpetrator was under intense psychological duress from someone else. That demand has to be explicit and dead serious to count.
Otherwise, sentencing usually falls within the established guidelines, depending on how the court weighs mitigating or aggravating circumstances. For instance, if someone kills a close family member who was suffering from a terminal, incurable illness, the judge would likely view that familial bond—like a child or a parent—as a mitigating factor. In those cases, the sentence might even end up being lower than the statutory minimum.

By the way, you obviously can't write about a murder committed with excessive cruelty—like stabbing a victim 37 times when they were actually asking for it—because then it technically becomes first-degree murder.
As far as legal classifications go, whether you stab someone or poison them, it’s the same thing: it's just murder.

? See, I didn't realize that. So what exactly counts as an "easy" murder? In my mind, poisoning someone so they just drift off peacefully 😬 feels way easier than, say, something brutal like tearing someone apart limb from limb.

Good question, I've been wondering about this too.

If the intent is identical and there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances—just a different method of execution—what actually determines if someone gets 1 year versus 8? Is a person going to get the same sentence if they stab a victim 370 times versus just "handing" them a bit of cyanide? Also, I'm curious... what defines a "simple" murder? Using a pitchfork?

I think the easiest way to settle this debate is to go right back to square one. You have to ask yourself what the fundamental purpose of prison actually is. At its core, it exists to remove dangerous individuals from society to ensure the rest of us stay safe. Now, look at it this way: if you want to kill someone, you don't need to stab them ten times; once or twice usually does the trick. Or you could just use poison. Common sense suggests that someone who stabs a person repeatedly is inherently more dangerous to the public than someone who commits the exact same crime in a "cleaner" fashion. I mean, the outcome is identical in both cases. But obviously, the first person did it with a certain level of relish rather than out of pure necessity, so it stands to reason they should be removed from society for a much longer stretch than the second person.

That’s my take on it, anyway. Maybe someone could jump in and give us the actual legal perspective on how this works. 🙏

Adam Lewis23 said:Right. I didn't realize that. But what exactly defines a "simple" homicide? To me, poisoning someone so they just drift off peacefully seems 😬 way easier than, say, something like disemboweling them.

There’s no such thing as an "easy" murder; there is only murder (meaning it wasn't done by accident or on impulse).
A "difficult" crime is determined by:
The method—whether it's brutal (stabbing someone 37 times) or extremely insidious (poisoning); or if killing one person puts others at risk too.
The motive—acting out of greed, trying to commit or cover up another felony, or through senseless revenge.
The protected party—such as a pregnant woman or a public official, like a police officer, on duty.

The sentencing range is massive—anywhere from 8–15 years to 20–40.
The actual sentence depends on the specific act, the circumstances, the perpetrator, and various other factors.

Alright. I'm heading out. But honestly, this feels pointless. If we already agreed that I’m taking that person out, then I’m the kind of guy who actually follows through. Might as well enjoy the thrill a little... 😁 This isn't even about the law anymore, but whatever. It would be pretty hilarious if there were such a thing as easy murder. With an easy weapon. Easy women. In easy night hours. Anyway, alright, I'm done talking. See ya.

Totally wrong, just completely wrong 🙂

We need to carve out some territory on this planet to start a new nation... one built on actual, decent morals instead of this twisted, broken mess we have now 🥳

Arthur Barnes said:We should carve out a territory on Earth to serve as a new nation—one built on actual principles rather than this twisted, broken morality we see today. 🥳

Losing the will to live, yet terrified of prison if you don't follow the rules? Just come here to Switzerland; we already have tourists coming specifically to end it all. www.exit.com They’re offering "arrangements" where success is supposedly guaranteed and painless. The law doesn't stand in their way.

Look, if we’re talking about killing someone who happened to express a desire to die during a momentary lapse in judgment or a period of extreme weakness, then the law absolutely has a reason to step in and prevent it.
But when you get into the ban on euthanasia—or assisted suicide—the legal definitions feel incredibly flimsy. It’s all too easy to manipulate the process. Someone could set up a lethal dose in a syringe, let the individual administer it themselves via a button press, and suddenly you've bypassed the entire spirit of the law.