As anyone who follows the news of old, ill, and disabled people who get killed by family members or “caregivers,” it’s all to clear that if the perpetrator claims the act was a “mercy killing,” it’s frequently a successful defense strategy. The public tends to believe that the victim would have wanted to die, even if they didn’t leave any word behind to say that they wanted to be:
- smothered with a pillow;
- shot in the head;
- given a medication overdose;
or any other highly effective means that family members and “caregivers” have used to kill family members/friends/clients who are old, ill or disabled.
On June 16th, two stories of killers whose “mercy killing” defenses failed came through my news feed. They are instructive. They give a pretty good idea as to just what it takes to nullify a “mercy killing” defense.
The first comes from the Newcastle Herald in Australia:
A CARER who tried to murder his vulnerable and defenceless patient in the middle of the night was jailed for a maximum of eight years yesterday after the judge said it was “far removed from any idea of a mercy killing”.
Steven James McLaren, 55, will serve a non-parole period of five years after he told Newcastle District Court that he felt trapped and was “at the end of my tether” caring for Barry Harrison, 61, who suffered from motor neurone disease.
Mr Harrison had only some movement of his head and eyes with McLaren describing him as “more or less a quadriplegic”.
McLaren moved in to Mr Harrison’s Eleebana home in March 2010, Judge Berman said.
McLaren went into Mr Harrison’s bedroom about 2am on October 5, 2010, and adjusted Mr Harrison’s bed so Mr Harrison was lying horizontally, which would lead to him choking and dying.
McLaren, who previously pleaded guilty to attempted murder, said he expected Mr Harrison to die quickly and it would look like a natural death.
Instead, Mr Harrison woke, screamed for help and managed to survive for about six hours before a nurse found him on the floor.
The lesson here is, of course, you can’t claim that you acted out of mercy if your victim survives and accuses you of trying to murder him.
The second story comes from The Dispatch (Ocean City, MD). The case involved a 58-year-old man accused of killing his 85-year-old mother:
SNOW HILL — After delivering a 30-minute dissertation on how much he cared for his late elderly mother and how much money he spent on that care, a Pennsylvania man last Friday was sentenced to 25 years in prison for repeatedly running her over on a rural road in northern Worcester County last August.
More…
From the beginning, Steven Molin did not deny running over his mother as many as three times, but claimed the incident was an accident, caused in part by a faulty passenger side door on the 2008 Chevy work truck damaged in a different accident earlier in the day. However, a Worcester County Sheriff’s Office accident reconstructionist, after reviewing the physical evidence and interviewing Molin, determined the victim had been run over three times despite ample opportunity for the suspect to avoid hitting her after the first collision.
The takeaway here is that you’d better claim it was a “mercy killing” from the outset. Claiming the death was an “accident” and changing over to the “mercy killing” defense doesn’t work – especially when a car is the murder weapon.
Of course, these cases are fairly unusual, most homicides defended as acts of mercy, the accused are careful to make sure the victim actually died (obviously, hence the use of “homicide” here). Additionally, most perpetrators avoid using knives or blunt force, preferring guns, suffocation and medication overdoses. Making a token attempt on one’s own life also helps with defense.
Sheesh. No wonder so many people get away with murders of this type. You have to be a special kind of stupid to screw it up as in the two cases linked above. No less guilty or malicious than the “successful” killers, just a lot less intelligent. –Stephen Drake