|
This is all hypothetical.
There is a line in Walt Whitman's poem, "Arithmetic", that goes something
like: "If you ask your mother for one egg and she makes you two and you
eat both of them, who is better at arithmetic, you or your mother?"
Now suppose a wife wants to kill her husband and isn't in a big hurry to
do so. If she slips him an obvious poison that kills him immediately,
that will be easy to prove and she will go to jail. If she gives him
a cumulative poison that takes years to do the job, she can also go
to jail. However, suppose the husband has a heart condition and she
decides to prey on his affection for fat laden foods that aren't good
for him by cooking them for him. Suppose further that she never insists
that he eat them, and withdraws them whenever he complains about them,
but continues to make them and most of the time he eats them and is
happy about it. And then he croaks after a few years from the combination
of his existing heart condition and the food he's been getting.
I realize that the same result can be achieved through stupidity, so
intent is probably difficult to prove. However, there are lesser charges
than murder for which intent is not an element of the crime.
One reason I am even considering this question is that I think there have
been some lawsuits against fast food places for jeopardizing the health of
people who eat there, even though the people eat there voluntarily. I think
it is similar in spirit to the lawsuits against tobacco companies. I'm not
sure but I think the high fat content is part of the issue. Some of these
fast food places might even make information on the precise nutritional
content available.
So, if there can be civil liability in a case like that, can there likewise
be criminal liability in the case of the wife who performs the same function
for her husband that the fast food place performs for the people who patronize
it?
Assuming a negative answer, how would the situation be changed if the wife
was warned by various people that this style of cooking would have this
effect? E.g. might that upgrade the state of mind from "stupidly"
to "recklessly"? (I realize that "stupidly" is probably not a state
of mind under the law, particularly in the case of a person of average
intelligence...)
And what about the lesser situation where the husband doesn't croak but
has a stroke that renders him incompetent, whereupon she assumes control
of all their joint assets and lives happily ever after?
Remember, this is all hypothetical. I'm just making it up as I go along.
I realize that there are a lot of people who just love to cook certain
things and really can't focus on issues of nutrition and long term effects
on health, no matter how intelligent they are, even when it affects the
people closest to them.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <ara@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
|
| |
| |
Allan Adler <ara@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
This is all hypothetical.
[OP brings up the idea of "killing" someone with a heart condition,
by intentionally tempting him with fat laden foods until he has
another heart attack and dies.]
One reason I am even considering this question is that I think there have
been some lawsuits against fast food places for jeopardizing the health of
people who eat there, even though the people eat there voluntarily. I think
it is similar in spirit to the lawsuits against tobacco companies. I'm not
sure but I think the high fat content is part of the issue. Some of these
fast food places might even make information on the precise nutritional
content available.
My personal opinion is that these suits are _really_ stupid. I can
see _some_ slight basis for the suits against tobacco companies. For
years, the tobacco companies publicly insisted that their products
weren't harmful or addictive, even while putting legally-required
warnings on the packages (and, later, ads). And some of the materials
produced by discovery from those lawsuits show that the tobacco
companies _very own_ research showed that, yes, smoking kills, and
yes, it is addictive. And further, that the may have manipulated the
nicotine content to make sure people stayed addicted.
I still think people should take responsibility for their own decision
(to smoke, or to eat high fat foods), but there's at least the
beginnings of a case for fraud against the tobacco companies.
But I haven't heard of any fast food place claiming that their
hamburgers and milkshakes and pizzas are healthful. That they're
convenient and popular, yes. Also that they taste good (false IMHO,
but that _is_ a matter of opinion). But not that they are healthful
or safe.
Assuming a negative answer, how would the situation be changed if the wife
was warned by various people that this style of cooking would have this
effect? E.g. might that upgrade the state of mind from "stupidly"
to "recklessly"? (I realize that "stupidly" is probably not a state
of mind under the law, particularly in the case of a person of average
intelligence...)
Not IMHO.
And what about the lesser situation where the husband doesn't croak but
has a stroke that renders him incompetent, whereupon she assumes control
of all their joint assets and lives happily ever after?
If you think this would result in her living "happily ever after", you
are crazy. If you are acting as "conservator of the person" for an
incompetent relative, you are stuck with a lot of extra duties. If
you don't perform them to some minimal standard, somebody will
probably report you and the courts will take some action -- putting
somebody else in charge of the assets, or even putting you in jail for
elder abuse or neglect. It's worse, of course, if you love the person
you are acting on behalf of, because then you really _do_ try to do
what's best and kick yourself whenever it doesn't work out right.
Or maybe it's worse if you _don't_ love them. Then you are stuck with
having to look after this person you don't care for, pay their bills,
and keep track of all the expenses so that you can prove you spent
their money on them and not on yourself.
I know. I had to manage my father's affairs for the last 4 years of
his life. And watch his facilities deteriorate over that time period.
And I'm still taking care of my mother's affairs.
Community property may make it a little easier. She wouldn't have to
prove that she spent his money exclusively on his needs. But she
would still have to either watch over him herself or pay somebody to
do it -- either in her own house (don't you just love having strangers
in your house 24 hours a day?) or pay a "retirement home" or "skilled
nursing facility" or some such to take care of him.
If he's not rich, this will be a big drain on their joint assets. I'm
fortunate that my parents were relatively well off, and had enough
money to pay $4000/month at Dad's Alzheimer's facility plus
$3200/month at Mother's "Assisted Living" place. But make no mistake,
taking care of a mentally disabled relative is no picnic.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and
to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising
liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
|
| |
| |
Allan,
You ask a hypothetical question concerning food, health, and murder. You
hypothesize that a wife, to murder her husband, prepares "fatty foods" when
she knows that they are contraindicated due to a heart condition. You
compare this to poisoning the food.
I don't buy this. The neat thing about poison is that it is hidden. The
victim thinks he's eating dinner when in fact he's eating poison. In your
hypothesis the victim knows fatty food is bad for him, sees fatty food on
his plate, and eats. Sounds like suicide to me. Of course, as you point out,
intent is hard to prove.
Even with the argument that the wife is well informed of the dietary
health risks, unless she is sneaking the bad food past her husband's lips,
what crime do you see? I suppose she could overseason with salt in a
poisonous manner. In this case the problems would be proving intent and
establishing a causal link between a high sodium diet and the husband's
death or stroke. Consider a fatal heart attack. The cause of death is
cardiac arrest. There's no real need to do an autopsy since the heart
condition is already established. While it is possible that salt led to this
death it is not established. Let's compare this to long term poisoning with
wayfarin(rat poison) or cyanide. In this case the husband becomes
progressively ill, is probably treated various times for various symptoms
and eventually dies. Since the death is mysterious an autopsy is done and
poison is found. Now the police start looking for the poisoner.
There was a very well publicized case that you might wish to review.
Sunny Bulow, a diabetic, lapses into a coma. Her coma is consistent with an
overdose of insulin. Insulin is a naturally occurring chemical in the body.
By the time questions are raised about her coma any high doses of insulin
were metabolized and gone. There is no link between a high dose of insulin
and any individual.Much attention is focused on her husband, Klaus von
Bulow. Nothing is ever proved and though tried he is found not guilty.
All in all it is unwise to live with a hypothetical spouse who hates you
enough to contemplate murder.
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
[snip]
One reason I am even considering this question is that I think there have
been some lawsuits against fast food places for jeopardizing the health of
people who eat there, even though the people eat there voluntarily. I think
it is similar in spirit to the lawsuits against tobacco companies. I'm not
sure but I think the high fat content is part of the issue. Some of these
fast food places might even make information on the precise nutritional
content available.
So, if there can be civil liability in a case like that
BZZT, stop right there. There can NOT "be civil liability in a case
like that". Fast food restaurants were indeed sued under the theory
you cite, but anyone in the world can be sued no matter what the
theory is. The question is whether the theory will be succesful, and
in the fast food cases the theory failed. The lawsuits were all
dismissed without going to trial.
There can be no criminal or civil liability for the wife in your
hypothetical, because the husband's death is too far removed from the
actual affirmative actions by the wife. There are too many other
intervening causes that could have also contributed and/or caused his
death other than the meals she prepared for him.
|
| |
| |
Allan Adler wrote:
This is all hypothetical.
But it and the replies remind me of a story I read in
a science fiction magazine. There was a law providing
that tobacco was illegal, and provided the death penalty
for possession. The person convicted chose to die
by smoking -- thereby making his posession and use
"legal".
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
|
