Video Evidence in Court

The videotape brought Kevorkian into the limelight again, with more coverage than any one of his 100 and more previous assisted suicides. The video worked well to publicize Kevorkian's cause, if not get the public behind him.

It was also conveniently shown by CBS during November "sweeps" period, when advertisers are watching the ratings.

Kevorkian plans to starve himself if he is convicted and put in jail. He has gone on "hunger strikes" both of the two previous times he was in jail (AP). He wants the issue to be decided (but in his own favor, of course) and video is helping to force a decision. If it is the wrong decision, the court will be responsible for Kevorkian's own life.

Although it seems that the video would prove Kevorkian's guilt, it does not do so. Video was used in such a way, that his guilt is still uncertain.  Kevorkian's face was not shown on the video when he injected the fatal dose to his patient, but the doctor admits to the act. Why was he not willing to provide complete video evidence? After the euthanizing, Kevorkian left the man's body in his house to be found later by a hospice nurse. Does Kevorkian really want to be found guilty? If Kevorkian is found innocent (he is not shown in the video after all), he will declare he has won, and that euthanasia is therefore legal.

Kevorkian is leaving himself room, yet at the same time forcing the issue by publicizing the videotape of it. The video images of a man dying is more of a disturbing and attention grabing ploy, than a proof of Kevorkian's involvement and guilt. Kevorkian wants to raise the issue, escape any negative consequences, and with the videotape he may be able to do so.

The Kevorkian case is another example of video technology changing the way justice is done. Whether video is a help or a hindrance to the justice system is not clear, video certainly succeeds in complicating the legal process.

|<-back|
|<-back to News/Politics Index|