Euthanasia for Life Prisoners (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

He has a mental illness. He's not fit to decide such things.

If he was entirely rational etc, he could starve himself to death like the Irish prisioners

 

[Cookie182]

He has a mental illness. He's not fit to decide such things.

If he was entirely rational etc, he could starve himself to death like the Irish prisioners

True, but he obviously has enough lucid moments to organise his lawyers to explicitly state his death intention, to consistently attempt suicide etc

So you wouldn't have a problem with him dieing by starvation? Is this because there is no one else assisting?

 

[Iron]

True, but he obviously has enough lucid moments to organise his lawyers to explicitly state his death intention, to consistently attempt suicide etc

So you wouldn't have a problem with him dieing by starvation? Is this because there is no one else assisting?

I suppose. The fact that he hasnt starved or successfully attempted suicide seems to indicate that he's not at all of sufficiently sound mind. Are you suggesting that those with serious mental illnesses should be assisted in suicide, if they ever express such a wish?

Euthanasia only comes up when the person cant do it themselves. Nothing's stopping you from locking your door and gashing open your veins right now - that freedom is inherent. The issue is when you ask someone else to do this for you. As a country, we respect life, murder is the highest crime, we should have nothing to do with it.

 

[Cookie182]

I suppose. The fact that he hasnt starved or successfully attempted suicide seems to indicate that he's not at all of sufficiently sound mind. Are you suggesting that those with serious mental illnesses should be assisted in suicide, if they ever express such a wish?

Euthanasia only comes up when the person cant do it themselves. Nothing's stopping you from locking your door and gashing open your veins right now - that freedom is inherent. The issue is when you ask someone else to do this for you. As a country, we respect life, murder is the highest crime, we should have nothing to do with it.

Contraban ie knives ain't allowed in prison.

Thats where your argument falls short here. In the context of prisoners, particularly lifers, the system is very much stopping them performing self-harm and ultimately making the choice of death. My argument is that, on the merit of each case and the circumstances, the state should allow and assist (medically) in the procedure for those prisoner's with the most gloom futures.

 

[Iron]

I disagree. By committing very serious crime, theyre imprisioned under state authority - in part to stop them reoffending, in part to punish them, in part to reassure the community, in part to deter other criminals.

What message does it send to the rest of the community if they know that the state will execute them simply because they wish to be executed? Suicide booths on george street? Sure there's an element of punishment to uphold, but also a moral committment to life. Showing this committment to the community and world is essentially more important than the feelings/wants of prisioner imo. This may be part of the punishment.

But like I said, the state tends to release seriously ill patients, or at least give them proper medical care.

 

[jb_nc]

I disagree. By committing very serious crime, theyre imprisioned under state authority - in part to stop them reoffending, in part to punish them, in part to reassure the community, in part to deter other criminals.

What message does it send to the rest of the community if they know that the state will execute them simply because they wish to be executed? Suicide booths on george street? Sure there's an element of punishment to uphold, but also a moral committment to life. Showing this committment to the community and world is essentially more important than the feelings/wants of prisioner imo. This may be part of the punishment.

But like I said, the state tends to release seriously ill patients, or at least give them proper medical care.

is dat a...

...slippery slope fallacy

 

[Empyrean444]

No. You commit a crime, it is proven and you get a sentence (in this case life for something extremely severe). There should be no easy way out.

 

[lolokay]

how can us good people be happy if the bad people aren't suffering ??

 

[Graney]

No. You commit a crime, it is proven and you get a sentence (in this case life for something extremely severe). There should be no easy way out.

You think voluntarily ending your life is easy?

 

[asdfpoiu]

we could save a lot of money by killing them....

 

[Planck]

No. You commit a crime, it is proven and you get a sentence (in this case life for something extremely severe). There should be no easy way out.

What an idiotic and fatuous comment.

 

[Blobulator]

how can us good people be happy if the bad people aren't suffering ??

I find that a tad vindictive honestly. It should be enough that these 'bad' people are removed from the society, so we can continue about with our 'good' lives, ideally undisrupted. If the person is locked up in a cell for all eternity and won't ever truly see the light of day again, what should it matter to you if they're still alive or dead? I'm sure you don't exactly follow the life span of various criminals in jail just to check they're still suffering and haven't died yet. You can still easily be happy just simply worrying about your own life.

As for those that may have been effected by said criminals though... Like Cookie said, I believe, it's not necessarily going to make the tragedies they've experienced any easier to bear whether the convicted is alive and removed from society, or wiped off the face of the earth. Their loved one will still have passed away regardless.

we could save a lot of money by killing them....

As.. unfortunate a view this is, to be thinking about the monetary aspect, he has a point. Allowing these life prisoners the option of euthenasia would certainly stop crowding in prisons and alleviate some of the financial strains that go into keeping these people alive, despite being removed from society and not contributing to it in any truly meaningful way.

Still, as for the primary issue... it's a fine line. Like mentioned earlier, you don't necessarily want to give the person the option of "Euthenasia or Life Sentence" without them having experienced prison, since they aren't exactly making an informed decision as to which they'd prefer without knowing how it is first-hand. Then again, you have the problem later that if they develop some sort of psychological disorder from the life imprisonment, that they may not be able to make such an informed decision later down the track anyway.

I mean I do support euthenasia in general, but this is a slightly skewed scenario. I suppose if some sort of psychological assessment was offered beforehand to make sure the individual wasn't being completely irrational at the time of consent, and had served some sort of minimum time in prison to experience it and help inform their decision, then I don't see the point in prolonging such torture when it won't matter to the average person outside of the prison.

 

[Cookie182]

I find that a tad vindictive honestly. It should be enough that these 'bad' people are removed from the society, so we can continue about with our 'good' lives, ideally undisrupted. If the person is locked up in a cell for all eternity and won't ever truly see the light of day again, what should it matter to you if they're still alive or dead? I'm sure you don't exactly follow the life span of various criminals in jail just to check they're still suffering and haven't died yet. You can still easily be happy just simply worrying about your own life.

As for those that may have been effected by said criminals though... Like Cookie said, I believe, it's not necessarily going to make the tragedies they've experienced any easier to bear whether the convicted is alive and removed from society, or wiped off the face of the earth. Their loved one will still have passed away regardless.

This.

There really doesn't seem to be a strong argument to the contrary- apart from those advocates of extreme retribution, which is at best cold and vindictive (the very qualities usually in criminals you condemn)!

My position is that if a policy was carefully planned and adhered to, in such a way that a minimum term was served and psychological assessments concluded complete consent then it should be the right of the prisoner to go ahead.

Strictly, the procedure should also not replicate the death penalty in anyway. DP by lethal injection for example is a cruel and unusual punishment; as it is performed by prison officers not MD's, the level of anaesthetic is questionable (given the patient is paralysed we can't know of their pain) and of course it is involuntary killing (i.e. murder) by the state.

I'm not a med student, but I'm envisaging the most peaceful death possible for a prisoner if this policy was introduced- i.e. hospitalised and administered a painkiller overdose, although I don't actually know what the most "humane" way to do it would be (leave the science to someone else here). I can also see a conflict of ethics arising if doctors were required to do it; nevertheless I would still support this proposal.

 

[Maxc]

Contraban ie knives ain't allowed in prison.

Thats where your argument falls short here.

Plenty of shit isnt allowed in prison but it doesnt mean prisoners cant access this stuff, knives included. If you think that inmates would be incapable of finding something suitable to slash themselves open then you're retarded

 

[Iron]

It's an interesting idea, but pretty bloody stupid if you ask me. It would be viewed as a death penalty with spin. If serving a life sentence, or several, who amongst us wouldnt consider euthanasia at least once? Prison itself would surely put you in a totally unrealisitic frame of mind. This doesnt mean that you have nothing left to objectivley offer, no happiness left to experience in the solidarity of fellow prisoners, no joy to experience and wisdom to impart with visitors, no recourse to have your sentence reviewed, no chance to discover great meaning in the finer arts like music or literature, painting or even sport, no chance to discover God and Love thru the various religious people who take the duty to visit the imprisoned seriously.

It's a totally barbaric view to state that an incarcerated person is essentially a dead one who should have the supposedly 'humane' option of state death. I hope that this is obvious. The state cannot participate in such a scheme because of its respect of life, and its belief, however faint, that prison can be a place of redemption and individual renewal, where the life rediscovers real meaning and truth, even if, by its prior actions, it has lost the right to excercise this discovery freely in the world.

Seriously, I cant see how this would not lead to suicide booths on main street. Cant you imagine a 9-5 corporate slave who suddenly decides that he too is imprisoned by materialism, financial obligations etc enough so as to wish to die at a whim?

In short, up yours Cookie, you devilish scoundrel

 

[hermand]

we could save a lot of money by killing them....

pretty sure that the death penalty costs america more than to imprison someone for forty plus years, i'll get a source, i just can't remember where i read it.

i'm not sure about this. i don't really care too much, what someone decides to do with their life is up to them. however, if i was family of one of the people who'd been killed by the prisoner, i'd want them to suffer for as long as possible. yeah that might be vindictive, but they would have deprived a loved one of life, and that's unforgivable in my view. i have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who's murdered another in cold blood.

 

[Iron]

out with it cookie!
I see u bebe.
sheken that ess

 

[Cookie182]

It's an interesting idea, but pretty bloody stupid if you ask me. It would be viewed as a death penalty with spin. If serving a life sentence, or several, who amongst us wouldnt consider euthanasia at least once? Prison itself would surely put you in a totally unrealisitic frame of mind. This doesnt mean that you have nothing left to objectivley offer, no happiness left to experience in the solidarity of fellow prisoners, no joy to experience and wisdom to impart with visitors, no recourse to have your sentence reviewed, no chance to discover great meaning in the finer arts like music or literature, painting or even sport, no chance to discover God and Love thru the various religious people who take the duty to visit the imprisoned seriously.

It's a totally barbaric view to state that an incarcerated person is essentially a dead one who should have the supposedly 'humane' option of state death. I hope that this is obvious. The state cannot participate in such a scheme because of its respect of life, and its belief, however faint, that prison can be a place of redemption and individual renewal, where the life rediscovers real meaning and truth, even if, by its prior actions, it has lost the right to excercise this discovery freely in the world.

Seriously, I cant see how this would not lead to suicide booths on main street. Cant you imagine a 9-5 corporate slave who suddenly decides that he too is imprisoned by materialism, financial obligations etc enough so as to wish to die at a whim?

In short, up yours Cookie, you devilish scoundrel

I fundamentally disagree. Respectfully, Iron you have once again painted your feather-tailed, love-spiked delusion- a proverbial backlash at the so called "evils" of materialistic reality void once more of any truth value.

The state can "believe" what they want- but I wouldn't let sentiments of Shawshank rule to highly on your prison visions. It’s generally accepted as a horrid place- living under the constant threat of violence, social abandonment and rape. You stand strong now for the "restorative" awe of prison life, which is an ironic jump from your cold-hearted retribution preach less then a few posts back (which recognises that you do see it as a place of punishment).

I disagree about the "objective" qualities of happiness available- we are discussing an individual's subjective experience. If you’re serving several life terms, there’s a good chance you’re in a super-max 23 hr day concrete box, with little social contact at all. Sure, some prisoners may socially adapt and find meaning within the small walls- but denying everyone the right not to end their experience based on this vision is fallacious. If you’re locked away until your natural death- time would become the torture. If your constantly seeking suicide (and painfully hurting yourself in the process) i.e. like Bryant, why can't we just allow him? What are we delaying? The man will never leave a cell. If in his mind (and he is best judge) there is little autonomy; little control over any preference satisfying ability he has, then why is it an absolute ought that he stay until "nature takes its course".

As was previously mentioned, are the victim’s family really keeping a timeline of the murder's suffering? Or are they just trying to move on in anyway they can- irrespective of the living status of the killer?

 

[Cookie182]

My understanding is that this form of policy is under discussions in the Netherlands.

Dutch government plan for 'easy euthanasia' in Dutch prisons (last year)

 

[Iron]

I fundamentally disagree. Respectfully, Iron you have once again painted your feather-tailed, love-spiked delusion- a proverbial backlash at the so called "evils" of materialistic reality void once more of any truth value.

The state can "believe" what they want- but I wouldn't let sentiments of Shawshank rule to highly on your prison visions. It’s generally accepted as a horrid place- living under the constant threat of violence, social abandonment and rape. You stand strong now for the "restorative" awe of prison life, which is an ironic jump from your cold-hearted retribution preach less then a few posts back (which recognises that you do see it as a place of punishment).

I disagree about the "objective" qualities of happiness available- we are discussing an individual's subjective experience. If you’re serving several life terms, there’s a good chance you’re in a super-max 23 hr day concrete box, with little social contact at all. Sure, some prisoners may socially adapt and find meaning within the small walls- but denying everyone the right not to end their experience based on this vision is fallacious. If you’re locked away until your natural death- time would become the torture. If your constantly seeking suicide (and painfully hurting yourself in the process) i.e. like Bryant, why can't we just allow him? What are we delaying? The man will never leave a cell. If in his mind (and he is best judge) there is little autonomy; little control over any preference satisfying ability he has, then why is it an absolute ought that he stay until "nature takes its course".

As was previously mentioned, are the victim’s family really keeping a timeline of the murder's suffering? Or are they just trying to move on in anyway they can- irrespective of the living status of the killer?

Lol I was thinking Shawshank! Awful things happened in that film, but they got the girl in the end. Why shouldnt we see prison as a chance, however small, for reformation?

1. Prisoners can reform and find meaning within prison walls thru a variety of means
2. Prisoner euth. would be a harmful and wrong admission of the state that such redemption is even possible. Incarceration is necessarily lonely and isolating and many men would be essentially, actively, tempted by the state to end their life and not seek the meaning/redemption I speak of.
3. Man cant live on bread alone and no authority can truely starve a man of spiritual/non-material meaning in life. Man's spirit is essential indomitable. Indeed, many in free society would live a more imprisoned existence than prisoners.

Seriously, I cant believe that you think that our life is utterly worthless if we're confined to a particular location for the rest of our lives. How shallow is that, my favorite atheist and most promising convert?