THE RIGHT TO KILL

Hokitika Guardian, 6 November 1929, Page 3

THE RIGHT TO KILL

FRENCH JURY’S VERDICT

[United Press. Association—By ElectricTelegraph.—Copyright.]

LONDON, November 4

A jury of twelve temperamental Frenchmen decided that a man had the right to kill his nearest- and dearest when suffering agony from an incurable disease. This was in the Corbett trial, which has set. all. Europe talking, because of the uncompromising attitude of Corbett. . .

“ I did it because I had the right to do so,” said Corbett. Public opinion throughout has been sharply divided on the issue, and the verdict has been responsible for an equally sharp division. Indeed,' opinion in England would appear to be more against than in favour of the French interpretation of the law. The “ Daily Express,” in a leading article, says: “This trial moves humanity with equal horror and compassion ; hut the right to terminate a fellow creature’s existence is a right which—whatever the motives—society can never recognise. To leave the awful issue of another’s life or death, to the play of private judgment, or hysteria., is to /legalise anarchy.”

'• Corbett snolte* in a strained whisper as | the Court , .President's u questions dragged out the whole .story. He said’: ■•‘We had a specialist from Westminster Hospital, London, to examine my mother. He reported that nothing could:save her from cancer. She might live three or four months at the longest,. She could only hope for a year 'rtf agonv. What could I do? I saw the sweat* of intolerable pain on her forehead. I would wipe it away and say to her: ‘My mother, it is too much for any son to hear! ’ On the day that I killed her, T had a letter from England saying that my grandfather had died. T was upset, and T decided that something must be done.”

; The President asked: “Did it occur to you that something more might be done. The Almighty might have intervened to spare her in His merev.”

Corbett: “That is just a religious belief. Nothing in my heart supports if.”

The President suggested that his mind was unhinged through worry, hut Corbo+t • refused to avail himself of this lo'>phnle. and he said: “I was 'dear-heeded in everything T did. I knew perfectly well what I was doing.” TV Public Prosecutor’s speech was vple”tle.ss. “ Corbett/,.” he cried to the iury. “is a criminal! The jury should not heed his unnatural, illegal appeal for sympathy. Justice demands his conviction and a punishment of at leas’- bre rears.”

Th“ defending counsel's speech plavqd. with the tragic, characters'' in the drama, and he who'ahiong them would blame him because he .had brought certain death a little nearer. Counsel declared that the administering of morphia- to people in agony was a slow, inhuman way of .killing them. Corbett only did in one second what the doctors would have, done in three months. , , ,

Throughput his counsel’s speech Corbett broke down, and sobbed bitterly. Several, women, were carried out hysterical.

TLi’f qf the jury wept unashamedly

The jury asked the President if they brought in a verdict of guilty could he mm- antee that Corbett would not he punished. The President replied refusing to give such a guarantee. The jury accordingly brought in a verdict of “ not guilty.” The newspapers recall the case of Albert Davies, who was acquitted at the Chester Assizes of murder on October 22, 1927, after he had drowned his daughter, aged four years, to end the agony of a deadly disease. There was a similar problem in 1927 when Mrs Delvigne gave arsenic to her mother, who was suffering from cancer. The jury, found Mrs Delvigne to be insane.