[ad_1]
It all took place at the couple’s home in the Nordingrå area in March last year.
After the 64-year-old man gave his seriously ill wife lethal injections of morphine, according to himself and the couple’s son according to his own will, he called SOS Alarm and told her what happened.
The 64-year-old man was later charged with murder. District Attorney Stina Sjöqvist referred to legislation that does not allow active euthanasia, regardless of whether it is carried out according to the declared will of a person.
Sentenced
The man was convicted in the Ångermanland District Court, but received a relatively light punishment under the circumstances: imprisonment for a year and a half.
He appealed the conviction and, just in time for hearings at the Lower Norrland Court of Appeal, lawyer Thomas Bodström relied on an expert opinion from Claes Lernestedt, professor of criminal law at Stockholm University.
“Should be acquitted”
Lernestedt considered that the accused should be acquitted because he had committed suicide in consultation with his wife.
Lernestedt also wrote that the 64-year-old “was in an emergency situation and acted to avoid danger to his wife’s health.” If he’s still found guilty, the whole thing must be considered to have acted in self-defense, Lernestedt said.
Do not take into account
Finally, the professor of criminal law stated that the court must take into account the mitigating circumstances, in case he is also convicted in the court of appeal.
A claim that sounds unheard of in court. The Court of Appeal, like the district court, follows the line of the prosecutor and convicts the man for involuntary manslaughter, but thereby reduces the prison sentence from one and a half years to one.
“To be seen as the perpetrator”
The Court of Appeal considers that the man’s actions were so “extensive and independent that his participation cannot be assessed as an accessory to suicide.” Instead, he should be considered the perpetrator. “
The court also warns that those present at the incident knew that “the act was not legal and that at least they discussed that issue … / … What has now been said means that the act (aged 64) is not punishable . out of necessity or because he couldn’t come to his senses. “
Regarding the sanction, the Court of Appeals alleges that the value of the penalty, given the circumstances, corresponds to one year in prison.
