Jo Mills & Charlie Deed's political intolerance & extreme left moralism

I quite like it as well. There really aren't any North American court room dramas (well, there was a short one about defence attorneys in America, but they cut that one real fast) and this was the first I saw. When I have more free time I will be looking into more British ones as I've been told Silk is rather good (although that's not my recommendation, I haven't got round to it yet).

In terms of the boy's right to decide, I think people find it tempting to say that he lacks competency to decide because of the nature of the decision and his choice. There is an inherent bias in most people to say 'it isn't rational to choose to die, therefore he is not rational, he cannot choose'. Except, this is a dying view in some respects. We've long accepted that adults can refuse medical treatment and we've reached the point where assisted suicide is becoming a right in many jurisdictions. Indeed, in Canada this year our Supreme Court sent down a ruling striking the criminal provision prohibiting it on constitutional grounds (well, within a year, they always give notice with something so big so that regulations can be made if the government is so inclined - it will be formally legal next year), meaning the government is prohibited from banning it. And this was a near thing as early as the 90s, actually (it just missed legalization then).

But in regard to minors, I have to point something out. Our law often holds minors to an adult standard. Criminally for example. If a minor commits a criminal act, often they may be tried as an adult and subject to the full consequences of their actions, even sometimes if they are years younger than 18. I also happen to know that in negligence if a minor is doing an "adult" activity (ex. driving) that they will be held to the standard of a reasonably competent adult regardless of age. And yet, many people are unwilling to extend adult rights to minors simply because they fall below an arbitrary line of determination of maturity. It is rather inconsistent that a minor risks being held to adult standards of responsibility if they do something, but when they ask to have some measure of determination over their own life, in a decision that is of the most fundamental importance to them, the hurdle is almost impossibly high. In fact, you might be appalled at how few legal rights minors actually have if you troubled yourself to inquire into the matter.

I'm not sure how I would articulate a standard for competency in making medical decisions, but that boy certainly would have met it and I would have as well at that age. And one thing I found problematic was how the impact on his family seemed to be argued as a factor. Such a thing has no bearing on competency and also has no bearing on what is in the child's best interests. Yes, it would be incredibly hard on the family if he died, but that wasn't at issue. What was were his rights as a person (not property) and whether he was capable of exercising them on his own or whether someone else should in his own best interest. Personally, I would have been inclined to choose between either granting him the rights or court appointing someone since the family, in my view, did not have his best interests in mind - they thought his principles were foolish and thought mostly of keeping the family intact I think. Not that I could blame them for the latter, people are emotional beings and have a hard time doing what is right. But I don't know that that is an excuse really. I know I will be the one ensuring such end of life wishes are carried out in my family and I feel honour-bound to respect all the wishes. Even if they did not want what I would prefer, I would do it (which is probably why my mother made sure I knew for all the close members of the family, come to think of it, actually).

In terms of the discord between legality and morality, it can be problematic. The law can go against prevailing morality and personal morality and there are a lot of fairly good examples simply because many governments don't represent the will or best interests of the people anymore (the US is now basically run by corporate interests...it's sad). But there are also ways that people can circumvent this when the law doesn't change. There's jury nullification for example. It's pretty rare, but when an accused person is plainly guilty, but the jury refuses to convict because they don't agree with the law, the law basically becomes unenforceable. This happened in Canada at first with the abortion restrictions (before they were struck). There was a really famous guy called Morgentaler who kept making clinics, which were illegal because they bypassed the highly restrictive regulations, and they kept arresting him. But they couldn't get convictions from juries. He was the one who later went on to get the whole prohibition struck, actually. He isn't alive anymore, but no one will forget him as he is responsible for ensuring abortion was available in all provinces and territories when previously it was almost impossible and you had to go through local committees that would sometimes even deny when it was dangerous not to have one. There's also when law enforcement just won't do anything. In British Columbia right now police aren't enforcing the marijuana laws and haven't for a while. BC cannot change the laws, because that's a federal issue, but they can ignore them. Not that it will matter much longer - we're heading to legalization with the new government. Also, in the 90s when there was that assisted suicide case that was lost, the woman who sued for the right had a doctor help her after anyway, with a government official present, and the police just refused to investigate even though it is against the law to do that (not so unpredictably, she lived in BC - I've thought about moving there at some point, they seem pretty liberal out there...but it's a lot more expensive apparently and they've got more natural disasters too).

As for precedent, it is not always wrong to defy a precedent. I don't know how familiar you are with the Courts, but generally speaking it works thus: (1) statute is binding on any court unless it is ruled unconstitutional; (2) the ruling of a higher court is binding on a lower court unless overturned by a higher court (and the highest court cannot bind itself). From the series, I take Deed to sit on one of the lower courts, so he shouldn't be overturning anything himself if he follows the rules (ha!). But something he could do is distinguish precedent and judges do that in a sneaky way of changing the law all the time. All they have to do is say - this is the precedent y, but it was decided on these facts, it was plainly not intended to apply to the facts in the present situation, so I'm going to make the new rule x. Of course, they could always be overturned, but not if the precedent is now in disfavour, maybe it is outdated or considered wrongly decided now.

And really, they can't do much to a judge who disobeys the rules. Judges are protected from being penalized for their decisions and for good reason - if they weren't there would be no judicial independence as the government could come along and dock pay or fire a judge for making an unpopular decision. But if a judge can get dismissed for bad behaviour, criminal things certainly. I'm not sure it really happens here, they're pretty selective. I'm also pretty sure a judge wouldn't be fired for sleeping with everyone like Deed is threatened with. Sure, it isn't ethical - there's a whole thing in the ethics code about not having conflicts of interest and I cannot imagine that doesn't apply to judges - but that would just bring sanctions and perhaps grounds for appeal. I heard of lawyers who did it, slept with clients or spouses of clients (ick) and they usually got warnings, fines, suspensions, etc. unless they did something for personal gain or something else despicable relating to it. It was never JUST sleeping with them. Although I repeat, ick, can't they find someone else to sleep with?

Oh, and just for kicks, this is the US system and they're just nuts, but did you hear about that judge who challenged a public defender to a fist fight, beat him up, and came back in to hear the cases without him present (so many things wrong with that, the biggest of which is that he broke the law by insisting on continuing to hear those cases without the defendants' attorney present...because he was bleeding outside...)? They didn't fire him. In fact, they only got round to suspending him a year and a half after the incident, probably just because of the viral video that leaked (the investigation only having started a year after the fight...). Oh, guess what state it was, bet you can get it in one if you didn't already know. Now I'd like to think that in Canada we'd fire the guy, or better yet, we'd not have made him a judge in the first place (if you did not know, the US elects most judges, so anyone can get in...recipe for disaster).