Voluntary euthanasia for lifers?

**yesdachi** · 09-06-2006, 14:05

Anyone (adult, not crazy) that wants to take their life should be able to.
Just try not to make a mess, someone will have to pick up after you.

**rory_20_uk** · 09-06-2006, 23:19

In cases where the guilt of the individual is beyond doubt (there are a few of them), I think that they should be either used for medical research, or failing that organ donorship.

The fact that money is wasted on looking after him is an indefensible drain on the public purse.

Starving people to death?

Are these the people that don't want to eat? Many elderly patients have no drive to eat or drink - their brain is that gone. They are not suffering in food and drink bieng witheld, and in fact are far more agitated when they are forced to eat and drink.

I agree that the big flaw with capital punishment is cases where there is doubt. Capital punishment should be on the books, but only used in a select group of people.

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2006, 00:43

Lifers have lost that choice, part of their punishment is to serve their sentence. Death by natural causes or parole should be their only outs.

**rory_20_uk** · 09-07-2006, 00:46

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Lifers have lost that choice, part of their punishment is to serve their sentence. Death by natural causes or parole should be their only outs.

If they're there for punishment, then rent some land in siberia / centre of australia and bung them there.

There are many others that require the money more than them.

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2006, 00:52

Make them work, or be really nasty and make them work for the NHS...

**Soulforged** · 09-07-2006, 00:54

If we want to humanize our institutions (speaking for the occidental world as a whole) then the only just choice between keeping him alive to purgate his entire conviction and letting him die (providing this is what he really wants) is the latter. The convicted never gives his lives to the state, decisions of life and death always belong to the person, there's nothing more personal. And there's no moral conflict, in my opinion, because he's a murderer, that's outside the issue considering that being charged with murder and convicted does not steals from one the right to take one's life. I do hope he's "freed" if he wants to, not doing so implies the presumption that the state has the right to make decisions of life and death over persons.

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2006, 01:00

If you've done something such as murder a child then I don't think you have any rights until after you have served your time.

**ajaxfetish** · 09-07-2006, 01:48

I'm undecided on the issue of capital punishment in general, but I think voluntary suicide should be allowed, and also in cases of the terminally ill. There should be checks to make sure the inmate is not encouraged to make this choice, and probably the involvement of family in the decision-making process (and probably a requirement for counselling or some-such first to make sure they're certain), but I think it's silly to force a convict to live out their sentence if they'd rather end it and save society a lot of hassle.

Ajax

**professorspatula** · 09-07-2006, 03:01

Lifers shouldn't get voluntary euthanasia - what's the point in that? They're there as punishment - to spend their days locked up so they know what they did is wrong. Giving them an easy way out to end their misery is never an option. Serve your time! Huntley came to my town, killed some kids there, and now should suffer inside until the life finally drains from his worthless body.

Really scum like him should be given a good kicking everyday and be forced to stare at a TV screen that flashes up, 'I AM A WORTHLESS ****' until his eyes bleed. You can cry human rights as much as you like, but when you do what he did, you become sub-human in my opinion, and such rules don't apply.

Then again, if you killed them off early, you could donate their organs to people that need them, although would you really want the heart of a cold blooded killer inside you?

Btw: I am not wholly serious about the kicking and forcing him to watch TV part, although I wouldn't shed a tear if it were to happen.

**yesdachi** · 09-07-2006, 14:15

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'm undecided on the issue of capital punishment in general, but I think voluntary suicide should be allowed, and also in cases of the terminally ill. There should be checks to make sure the inmate is not encouraged to make this choice, and probably the involvement of family in the decision-making process (and probably a requirement for counselling or some-such first to make sure they're certain), but I think it's silly to force a convict to live out their sentence if they'd rather end it and save society a lot of hassle.

Ajax

I would do just the opposite and do everything possible to make it so miserable that all the inmates would want to commit suicide. Turn up the heat, play celine dion music all the time, only serve lima beans for meals, etc. Then set-up Futurama style “Suicide Booths” and watch the crime rate drop. (What do you mean, cruel and unusual? Celine said it was a way to bring beautiful music and delicious beans to an untapped audience.)

Coincidently, on the season finale of 30 Days they mentioned that more than 2 out of 3 people that serve time in prison will return to prison.

**Soulforged** · 09-07-2006, 04:51

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If you've done something such as murder a child then I don't think you have any rights until after you have served your time.

I might have to elaborate to make myself a little clearer. I'm saying that they in FACT don't lose any rights regarding their life, those are basic human rights institutionalized that way in the actual configuration of law. Even if there's death penalty as an institution in a time and in a place the person still can kill himself if he wants and it will be unreasonable (especially in this case) to keep him alive against his will.
Now what you think is morally correct is another issue, and you might be right or not. I still remain the same and say this: If WE want to humanize our institutions and our conducts, wheter they're politic or not, then keeping a person, ANY person, alive against his will is an excess of interventionism and inmoral in my opinion.

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2006, 06:16

If the person was by themselves their entire life fair enough.

But I do not see someone who is part of a society has it all one way. Society (ie the rest of the individuals) and an individuals liberty (rights within the law) have to be balanced and it is a recipricol kind of relationship (not one to one). So while society owes the individual access to health and education the individual has responsibilities. A criminal is someone who has shirked their responsibilities and a murderer is someone who has removed all freedom of choice from another, since once you are dead you haven't got any choices left in life. As such the criminal has compromised his status... he owes society. Now he can't pay back a life as he can't bring back the dead... and if you can't fix something you shouldn't break it in the first place.

The criminal had a choice, they made it now they can live with the consequences like any adult should. Is the punishment too harsh, maybe. But if it saves a single childs life from another murderer who rethinks their actions then it is a credible exchange... an adult for a child, a criminal for an innocent. So yes if extracting his vital organs and bone marrow would save other lives then by all means harvest him. If on the other hand having voluntary euthansia reduces crime rates then that should be used too.