![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Legal quibbling
Jun. 9th, 2013 01:23 pmMark Hutt has been found guilty of first-degree murder. The jury didn't accept his claim that he didn't intend his wife to die, and that he was really guilty only of criminal negligence causing death.
As it happens, I believe his claim. I don't think he wanted his wife to die; I think he wanted her to stay alive so he could keep hurting her.
If he'd said that in court, I think they'd have believed him. I'm not sure it would have helped his case. It might have led to a conviction of second-degree murder or manslaughter, and classification as a dangerous offender, so in practise he'd never have been released unless he could convince the review panels that he'd been rehabilitated. As it is, I think that his charge is technically inappropriate, but appropriate in practise. He intended to continue performing activities that would inevitably have led to Donna Jones's death.
In general, I'm against the death penalty. Often there's some doubt about the identification of the criminals responsible for the crime; witnesses are unreliable, evidence is shaky; police and prosecutors are more interested in convicting someone than in making sure they've got the right person. And it would be much better that the criminal be rehabilitated and try to make some restitution to the victims, their families, and/or society in general. And human life has great value.
This is one of the exceptions. There's no question of Hutt's identity as the killer. And I don't think there's any chance of him being rehabilitated or doing anything to make up for what he's done. His best value to society is as parts for transplant. A quiet painless termination would be appropriate, I think.
As it happens, I believe his claim. I don't think he wanted his wife to die; I think he wanted her to stay alive so he could keep hurting her.
If he'd said that in court, I think they'd have believed him. I'm not sure it would have helped his case. It might have led to a conviction of second-degree murder or manslaughter, and classification as a dangerous offender, so in practise he'd never have been released unless he could convince the review panels that he'd been rehabilitated. As it is, I think that his charge is technically inappropriate, but appropriate in practise. He intended to continue performing activities that would inevitably have led to Donna Jones's death.
In general, I'm against the death penalty. Often there's some doubt about the identification of the criminals responsible for the crime; witnesses are unreliable, evidence is shaky; police and prosecutors are more interested in convicting someone than in making sure they've got the right person. And it would be much better that the criminal be rehabilitated and try to make some restitution to the victims, their families, and/or society in general. And human life has great value.
This is one of the exceptions. There's no question of Hutt's identity as the killer. And I don't think there's any chance of him being rehabilitated or doing anything to make up for what he's done. His best value to society is as parts for transplant. A quiet painless termination would be appropriate, I think.
