This paper examines the case of George Sanders, an 81-year-old man who was arrested for the murder of his wife Virginia after she requested his help in ending her life due to terminal illness and chronic pain. The paper evaluates the criminal justice response—from initial first-degree murder charges through plea negotiation to a manslaughter conviction and probation sentence—through the lens of prosecutorial discretion and the nonintervention model. The author argues that the judge, prosecutor, and police handled the case appropriately by recognizing the humanitarian context and limiting intervention, and contends that dropping charges earlier would have been preferable given Sanders' lack of malice and his lifelong devotion to his wife's care.
George Sanders was 81 years old in the fall of 2012 when he was arrested for the murder of his wife, Virginia. George spent 62 years—over three quarters of his life—unconditionally loving his wife. Virginia, known to her family as "Ginger," was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1969, which led to her life in a wheelchair. From that point forward, George became Ginger's sole caregiver. He did everything he could possibly do for her: he cooked, cleaned, and even helped her with her makeup.
Over time, Virginia's condition worsened, and she was eventually diagnosed with gangrene. At that point, they learned that Ginger would have to move to a nursing home, where she would most likely remain until her death. For Virginia, this was the final straw. She begged her loving husband to do the unthinkable: to take her life. Her pleas eventually reached George's heart, and he took her life merely because she asked him to ease her pain by doing so.
When initially arrested, George Sanders was charged with first-degree murder. He spoke honestly and openly with detectives about the details of his life and the events leading up to his wife's death. He did not try to cover up what he had done; he was truthful in saying he did what his wife asked of him. Sanders eventually entered into a plea deal with the prosecution and pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a crime that left him facing up to 12 years in prison.
During the trial, George's son spoke of the love and devotion that his father possessed for his mother. He told the judge that while he loved his mother, he also had a deep love for his father, whom he considered to be his hero. The prosecutor asked the judge not to sentence George Sanders to prison and instead requested that he be given probation. The judge agreed with this request.
In this case, the police, prosecution, and judge appear to have done their jobs appropriately. It is evident that Mr. Sanders devoted his entire life to loving his wife, Virginia. The justice system was able to recognize that even though Mr. Sanders did commit a crime, he committed it out of love for his wife. He wanted to make her happy, and her happiness lay in her death and the freedom from pain that would come with it.
This sentencing aligns with the nonintervention model, which posits that individuals who violate "quality of life" ordinances should be treated differently than those who have committed the same crimes but are considered serious offenders. George Sanders would never have taken his wife's life had she not asked him to do so. Furthermore, he does not possess the desire to do so again in the future. Regarding discretion, there is always a varying level of discretion in any case or situation. Certain aspects and details of any case should ideally be discussed only between police, prosecutors, and the courts whenever possible. However, in this case, such privacy may not have been an option.
"Author's perspective on appropriate discretionary intervention and sentencing"
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.