Point of law. Written by Julius. , Friday, July 31, 2009 at 3:23 PM, in Labels: occasions.

To those who had read the news about Debbie Purdy, who have multiple sclerosis had won a landmark House of Lords to have the law on assisted suicide clarified.

Debbie Purdy brought the case against the Crown Prosecution Service because she wants to know whether her husband Omar Puente would be prosecuted for assisting suicide where she plans to commit suicide abroad.

Accordingly, under the 1961 Suicide Act, aiding and abetting suicide is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in jail. The five Law Lords ruled in her favour and commented that it would be infringe the Human Rights Act 1998 as this would breach her right of private life if she's not allowed to end her life.

And this result a change of law where people who commit suicide is no longer an offence in UK. I think this would change the Act soon.

As yesterday, in Common law tutorial, our tutor set up a question where, does morality must be include in the Law (the question is something like this)

I find it intriguing to say morality is important.

I'd been told that Morality should never bring in place with Law.

What is morality to you? In my opinion, morality is the thing that set up by our religion. Our religion forbid us to do things that are immoral. Remember that, centuries ago, religion is the main force that governs people. In fact, that time, the Law is not even a word (perhaps, I'm not sure). Back then, morality is what noble people tend to took up where they will do things in apporiate manners.

So we all know that, we are forbid to commit suicide. As it's immoral and so forth. And why with the Debbie Purdy's victory in House of Lords over the CPS?

I think our Common Law tutor placed the last question which is should unjust law become a law (something like that, I can't recall), she indirectly telling us that there's no morality in Law. Took for example, in Malaysia, the ISA. Many people viewed it's immoral, yes, I agree that, in fact most of my group members agreed, BUT we also agreed that the ISA is still required. Why? It serves as anti-terrorism which would protect the citizen. By the fact, it clearly shows why morality shouldn't be placed 100%.

In my opinion, morality may not be highly emphasis. If you say, oh, without morality, there's misjustice. That's bs. Some people tend to argue that if there's no morality in Law and yet you still live peacefully in this world without harm. To me, what Law should be is equality not fully on morality. When we said equal, we mean we are on par, we deserve things what we ought to have, the Law set out to restrict our right but at the same time we actually placed in a comfortable position.

Furthermore, why we need morality when the judges are here? He or she will be the one to interpret the Law. He or she will be the one to find the balance between all this.

But I do agree that with large group of people who deem a certain thing or acts as immoral, group of people can influence through media and stress out the government to impose a certain Law. That's how it happens right? That's our rights.

Disclaimer, I know many people will be disagree with me. But I just voice out what I think. I wouldn't think I were to raise this issue to provoke others.
It's okay to voice out. But I don't want to know it anyway. So keep it to yourself. But if you really need to voice out, chill aside in the comment corner.