The awesome responsibility of deciding whether a human being should live or die
In short: Even after the abolition of the death penalty, judges still face harrowing life-and-death decisions. From conjoined twins to seriously mentally disabled infants, the legal system must navigate the profound moral weight of determining who is allowed to die and who must be kept alive.
For centuries, the finality of a death sentence has presented judges with a terrifying responsibility. In his legal career, Sir Alan Ward recalls the chilling atmosphere of the courtroom when a judge donned the black cap to pronounce a death sentence, such as a man being hanged by the neck until dead. These moments were marked by profound human suffering, from the disintegration of a man sentenced for murder to the sudden terror of a prisoner learning their appeal had failed. Ward remembers visiting a prisoner in a Pretoria gaol. He witnessed a man's bravado vanish as he became a twitching wreck on the scaffold.
The abolition of the death penalty in 1965 did not relieve the judiciary of these heavy moral burdens. Instead, the nature of the conflict shifted from criminal punishment to complex ethical dilemmas within the Family Courts and the Court of Protection. Judges are now regularly confronted with agonizing questions regarding the limits of medical intervention and the sanctity of life. The shift in judicial duty occurred following the 1965 abolition of capital punishment. This change did not ease the mental strain on the bench.
Current ethical conflicts involve deciding if infants with profound mental impairments ought to be permitted to pass away instead of receiving forced nutrition. Perhaps most starkly, courts have had to decide whether it is lawful to kill one conjoined twin in order to save the other. These cases demonstrate that the 'undiscovered country' of death remains a central, unsettling challenge for the law, requiring judges to make decisions where there is absolutely no room for error. These legal dilemmas often arise in the Family Court. Such weighty judgments leave no margin for mistakes.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question - Sir Alan Ward
- Also: To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/ideas-to-die-or-not-to-die-that-is-the-question-sir-alan-ward.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Philosophy · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics
