I have reproduced the article in my daily paper in full, but re-ordered some of the paragraphs to better sequence the story.

At this stage it all sounds pretty familiar - doesn't it. Here's where things start to turn ugly.
Wow - some real twists her that stretch the thoughts of those that have followed the recently concluded Schiavo case. In that case I was for the husband as the primary care giver making the decision but that was based on the many years of the case and the complete lack of medical improvement over many years.

How many that stuck up for the role of the husband (like me) in making the decision on that last case would stand up for the role of the husband in this case? To me I feel that custody should be taken from him on the basis of the current legal prosecution involving the severe injury to his spouse. Even if the parents are then awarded custody (for want of a better term) and decide to maintain her hold on life, the prosecution should still be upgraded to murder anyway, because this pathetic twosome have killed her in every detail other than a heartbeat.

[ 04-08-2005, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

Temporary custody should be taken away until his guilt is proven. However, there should be an order against the new custodian preventing any decision on ending her life during the period of temporary custody. IMO.

Of course, that would preclude trying him for murder. He'd be convicted of attempted murder. Then, you can pull the plug. It's a legal question as to whether you could then try him for the murder or increase the sentence. Here you would have to address double jeopardy issues. Over there I'm not familiar with how it would work.

<font color = lightgreen>Would double jeopardy apply? "Murder" and "attempted murder" are two different charges....

If he is suspected of having some involvement with the circumstances that placed her in this situation then hold an inquest and remove him as legal guardian temporarily, as Timber suggests. </font>

This is why we need judges to interpret the law; legislation alone can never cover every aspect. :(

I cant see why a charge of kidnapping or assault causing ABH can not be used first to get the man behind bars and the 'care' of Mrs Korp then transferred to the state or next of kin. As for murder charges that would be tough. I suspect that they will just face conspiracy to murder and or attempted murder. A good judge will take pre meditation into account and hopefully they will get 20 years each.

[ 04-20-2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

I believe that the state has been awarded 'control' with a view to terminateing her life / existance.

I just heard on the radio so no links sorry

I believe these things are interpreted differently from country to country. In this case it seems that the prosecution will be able to demonstrate an intent to kill Mrs Korp beyond reasonable doubt and as such it is not unlikely that the verdict will be guilty.
However if Mrs Korp dies and it can be prooven that she died _only_ as a result of the injuries suffered due to the assault there will be another (brief) trial for murder. In case this happens before the first trial the charge will most likely be upgraded.
There is no such thing as "Almost succesful murder". That is not a question of guilt, but sanction. I expect that there is great variation in the sanctions that can be given for attempted murder. The actual sanction is usually based on precedense. In case of very severe attacks with serious and permanent consequences the sanction is usually very severe almost as much as murder itself.
I serve as juror on a 4-year term and have been in a panel in a case such as this. However my vow of silence forbids me from discussing that even cursory.

EDIT: Minor typos

[ 05-02-2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]