Should Murderers be allowed to kill themselves?

[MMI]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, and that debate might still rumble on in the other thread for a while http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21871 , what do people think about convicted murderers being allowed to commit suicide? Should this be permitted? I have no trenchant views on this, although I do incline towrds the belief that suicide is not to be encourged.

[Thorne]

LOL! You just love to poke me to see which way I'll jump, don't you?

All right, then. As you probably expected, I have no problem with anyone killing themselves, regardless of the circumstances. If someone is so down on his life that he can see no other way out, who am I (or you) to tell him he has to deal with it? It's his life, after all.

Granted, most people who have been stopped from killing themselves have changed their minds. But most people who have been stopped weren't really interested in killing themselves anyway. A man who stands on a bridge threatening to jump is more likely to be making a bid for attention or is pleading for help. Give him the help. Talk him down, send him to a hospital and possibly turn him around. But a guy who writes a note, sits down in his chair, puts a gun to his head and actually pulls the trigger? He's not looking for help. He's looking to die. Even if he screws it up and only blows half his brains out, let him die.

I don't see any problem with letting convicted felons kill themselves, either, especially if they've already been condemned to death. Hell, sell them the rope and let them hang themselves in their cells. As long as they have enough money to pay for their burial, why not? Who loses?

[IAN 2411]

I only half agree with what is being asked, and now I am going to sound as if I am contradicting my posts of the other thread. I cannot comment on the United States, but in the United Kingdom we are all agreed that the death penalty will never happen in our lifetime at least. This means that murderers that are in our jails have, as well as committing their heinous crime, put the courts, the police, and the tax payer through enormous expense to arrive at their place of detention. It is this fact that leads me to believe that if we the tax payer have gone to great expense to keep this evil beast alive, then I don’t believe he has the right to abuse our generosity.

These murderers should be given work, and I don’t mean take them to a quarry and break rocks all day, or sewing mail bags, I mean real work. Build a factory in the prison that makes something useful, if they want tobacco, then if they don’t put in the hours then they get no tobacco. Each prisoner is responsible for the person next to him, if he messes up and don’t do his quota then they both lose out on their perks, so on and so forth. The surplice cash that the product brings is used for the running of the prison, IE: -food, heating, electricity, and the perk they are working for, even the guard’s pay. Work and stay warm and alive or sit back and watch others and freeze with no food, I’m sure that while they are working hard for 10 hours a day, they will too tired to give any trouble at night. This could also work for the ordinary prisoner, and in the case of thieves and robbers their profit would go as compensation to the victims of their crimes. I believe that it is the way to go, crime, punishment, retribution; I believe that my idea is the only true way that they can ever pay for their crimes. It is up to the government of the day to get real, make criminals pay back to the community what they have stolen, incarceration does not mean that they are in a hotel watching others work for their well being.

Regards ian 2411

[theDerangedArchitect]

so a man murders someone, and to rectify the situation, he is allowed to murder again?

there's that old saying, 'two wrongs don't make a right'. allowing murderers to commit suicide is like letting a child rapist force himself on an 18+ woman, because 'he didn't get it right the first time'. i have no doubt that people will misread this, and have lots of interesting things to say about the statement.

my point is, letting someone get away with a crime just because the crime was committed in the first place is a bad example to set for society as a whole. it doesn't matter what the crime is.

[Thorne]

my point is, letting someone get away with a crime just because the crime was committed in the first place is a bad example to set for society as a whole. it doesn't matter what the crime is.

I agree. So we must decriminalize suicide.

But then, I don't think anyone has ever been convicted for committing suicide. Only for trying and failing to commit suicide.

[Saheli]

This is a very interesting discussion...I have to say I've never even considered whether suicide should be allowed. But to me, that is the very last bit of control we have. I mean, someone can take away everything else, but no matter the circumstances, I still have the power to kill myself...unless of course, I'm being watched and have nothing to do it with... So my immediate thought is that while I don't necessarily condone suicide, I think that to take away that right from someone is so extremely cruel that I'm not sure whether I believe it should be done. I know that some people use suicide as a cry for help, not really wanting to do it, or partly wanting it but just wishing the circumstances would change moreso than wanting to die. But the level of desperation you have to come to in order to be serious about suicide is so low that to take the only option away just ...I don't even know how to word it. I don't know how many of you have ever been to the point where you wanted to die because you felt that was the only way to get out of a situation, because looking ahead you felt there was nothing you could do to make it better and could not bear the idea of going through it day by day. There isn't much lower you can go. If someone wants to commit suicide, they should have that right. As far as the point ian made about money, yes it might be considered an insult...I get that. But if a prisoner is dead then money is saved too, because if the suicide wasn't committed then the total cost would be higher, wouldn't it?

If someone is desperate enough, they will find a way to die, whether suicide is allowed or not. What is the harm in allowing them the choice?

[IAN 2411]

This is a very interesting discussion...I have to say I've never even considered whether suicide should be allowed. But to me, that is the very last bit of control we have. I mean, someone can take away everything else, but no matter the circumstances, I still have the power to kill myself...unless of course, I'm being watched and have nothing to do it with... So my immediate thought is that while I don't necessarily condone suicide, I think that to take away that right from someone is so extremely cruel that I'm not sure whether I believe it should be done. I know that some people use suicide as a cry for help, not really wanting to do it, or partly wanting it but just wishing the circumstances would change moreso than wanting to die. But the level of desperation you have to come to in order to be serious about suicide is so low that to take the only option away just ...I don't even know how to word it. I don't know how many of you have ever been to the point where you wanted to die because you felt that was the only way to get out of a situation, because looking ahead you felt there was nothing you could do to make it better and could not bear the idea of going through it day by day. There isn't much lower you can go. If someone wants to commit suicide, they should have that right. As far as the point ian made about money, yes it might be considered an insult...I get that. But if a prisoner is dead then money is saved too, because if the suicide wasn't committed then the total cost would be higher, wouldn't it?

If someone is desperate enough, they will find a way to die, whether suicide is allowed or not. What is the harm in allowing them the choice?

I think you have your wires crossed a little, i agree partialy to what you say but we are not talking about the man on the street, we are talking about people that have murdered someone else. Why the hell should they get an easy exit from life, the person that they killed didn't want to be dead, and i doubt if he wanted to comit ssuicide. To hell with a murderers last right, he forfieted his last right when the courts gave him his only human right, and that was to live and not face the death penalty. The man on the street, well it is as you say his one real right he has left, and that is to cop out when the going gets tough, it is a fact that most suicides are a cry for help gone wrong, there are less painful and other ways to get help without terminating your life.

Regards ian 2411

[Saheli]

I agree, but it still just seems so cruel...I know that someone who killed was cruel; I realize that they forfeit their rights when they commit a heinous crime. But for some reason I just can't bring myself to say that they shouldn't be able to commit suicide, and honestly, I can't put my argument into words. It's just more of an emotional thing for me rather than a logical string of thoughts. So I guess i'm saying while I feel this way, it's not really a defencible stance.

[SadisticNature]

Suicide is a tricky question. In certain states its still officially a crime so obviously in those states suicide would need to be decriminalized first. I think this largely depends on the mechanism. Should a prisoner for a capital offense be allowed to volunteer for lethal injection? I think if it is established that they are of sound mind, and understand the consequences of their action and still elect to choose this route its inhumane to say they have to stay alive in jail against their will. Of course I don't want to explore the full consequences of this, I certainly wouldn't want the government to be legally obligated to allow suicide of say military prisoners with strategic information.

[theDerangedArchitect]

my only concern, if suicide is allowed, is what people will start coming up with. for example, "bob" kills another "john's" wife. bob is convicted and goes to jail for life.

now, suppose bob decides to kill himself. john is going to be pissed! "he took my wife" says john, "it should be I that kill him".

even if the state does not allow john to kill bob, it is still going to cause unrest. "if a man is allowed to kill himself," the people will say, "why not let him be killed by a man that deserves the justice? if bob is allowed to die anyway, does it matter whose hand delivers the blow?"

[MMI]

I thought of this question when wondering how I could mess with Thorne's mind next time ...

Seriously, though, it occurred to me as I was looking at articles posted on the net and read a paper by a psychologist which said that he had frequently been asked by convicted killers to give them the means to kill themselves as they could not live with the memory of what they had done.

As these killers were inmates of a secure psychiatric institution, it must be questioned whether they were capable of making such a decision, and, let's face it, people who are hardened killers will have no remorse and will certainly not voluteer.

We can't force people to kill themselves, that's just another form of execution, but if they no longer want to live, I can see a kind of sense in letting them.

As I said before, I'm equivocal on this question. I'm not at all influenced by cost considerations, nor am I moved by the "two wrongs" argument. But if a man's crime bears down on him so heavily, why not let him take the only way out?

So long as the state is not made culpable for allowing the suicide to happen.

[MMI]

my only concern, if suicide is allowed, is what people will start coming up with. for example, "bob" kills another "john's" wife. bob is convicted and goes to jail for life.

now, suppose bob decides to kill himself. john is going to be pissed! "he took my wife" says john, "it should be I that kill him".

even if the state does not allow john to kill bob, it is still going to cause unrest. "if a man is allowed to kill himself," the people will say, "why not let him be killed by a man that deserves the justice? if bob is allowed to die anyway, does it matter whose hand delivers the blow?"

For reasons given elsewhere http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21871 , I believe only the state can carry out an execution.

I don't see the killer's suicide as carrying out the death penalty in another way, I see it as a release.

Should that option be available?


(a) For the criminally insane
(b) For the truly remorseful

Or are we denying the opportunity for the first group to recover and the second group to rehabilitate?

[IAN 2411]

The poor victim never had the chance to comit suicide, then why the hell should the murderer have the choice? The whole point of him not getting executed was so that he would go to prison and hopefully be tormented by his henius crime. You argue about the repulse you have for hanging a murderer MMI, but you would willingly let the same murderer kill himself, that smells of double standards. It also shows that you were making a mockery of the question asked in the other thread, when i asked for a life for a life, and you argued against it. What you are stating now, is that it is alright for a murderer to die by lets say hanging himself in his cell, as long as your hands and concience is clean.

Regards ian 2411

[theDerangedArchitect]

I believe only the state can carry out an execution.

isn't suicide the execution of the self? if murderers are allowed to kill themselves, doesn't that make it so executions can be carried out by someone besides the state? if murderers are allowed to execute, why wouldn't your average joe be allowed to?

[MMI]

The poor victim never had the chance to comit suicide, then why the hell should the murderer have the choice? The whole point of him not getting executed was so that he would go to prison and hopefully be tormented by his henius crime. You argue about the repulse you have for hanging a murderer MMI, but you would willingly let the same murderer kill himself, that smells of double standards. It also shows that you were making a mockery of the question asked in the other thread, when i asked for a life for a life, and you argued against it. What you are stating now, is that it is alright for a murderer to die by lets say hanging himself in his cell, as long as your hands and concience is clean.

Regards ian 2411

As I stated at the outset, I have no strong views on this question, but I inclined towards not allowing it, because the only people likely to want it are probably incapable of making a sane decision about it. However the question intrigues me, and I have put it forward for dicussion, and I have tried to look at it from more than one angle.

I do not resile one bit from anything in the other thread because I believe that the death penalty is judicial murder, and those who support it are no better than the killer himself.

Go back to the other thread if you want to discuss this.

[MMI]

isn't suicide the execution of the self? if murderers are allowed to kill themselves, doesn't that make it so executions can be carried out by someone besides the state? if murderers are allowed to execute, why wouldn't your average joe be allowed to?

I don't think so. I don't accept your reasoning.

[Thorne]

I thought of this question when wondering how I could mess with Thorne's mind next time ...
Mess away, my friend! Mess away. I can take it.

As these killers were inmates of a secure psychiatric institution, it must be questioned whether they were capable of making such a decision, and, let's face it, people who are hardened killers will have no remorse and will certainly not voluteer.
Those deemed insane are legally unable to make a rational decision, and so cannot be permitted to commit suicide. And I agree, the truly hardened killers will not have any true remorse and are unlikely to opt for this way out. But there are some who, by my reckoning, don't deserve the death penalty but who might be remorseful enough to want to end their lives: The mother who drowned her children to keep her lover from walking out; the teenager who beat his girlfriend to death in a drug-fueled rage; the father who killed his own family because he thought he was sober enough to drive. I can certainly understand these kinds of people wanting to kill themselves, and I would have no problem allowing them to do so.

[IAN 2411]

As I stated at the outset, I have no strong views on this question, but I inclined towards not allowing it, because the only people likely to want it are probably incapable of making a sane decision about it. However the question intrigues me, and I have put it forward for dicussion, and I have tried to look at it from more than one angle.

I do not resile one bit from anything in the other thread because I believe that the death penalty is judicial murder, and those who support it are no better than the killer himself.

Go back to the other thread if you want to discuss this.

But surely as a court officer for the State/Country, you now stand back and watch a killer commit suicide legally; surely that is a form of judicial murder. This answer is in answer to the statement or question you posed at the beginning of this thread.

Oooo big blue writing scarey.

[Thorne]

But surely as a court officer for the State/Country, you now stand back and watch a killer commit suicide legally; surely that is a form of judicial murder.
Technically, if it's legal it can't be murder. Just as being a spectator standing outside of a building watching a jumper can't be called murder. Of course, if you encourage him to jump....

[MMI]

But surely as a court officer for the State/Country, you now stand back and watch a killer commit suicide legally; surely that is a form of judicial murder. This answer is in answer to the statement or question you posed at the beginning of this thread.

Oooo big blue writing scarey.

No, the judical sentence is imprisonment. Should the prisoner be subsequently executed, that would be an unlawful killing.

Assisting a person to commit suicide is, I believe, a crime in England, so, obviously, it could not happen here without a law change. Just as for husbands who accompany their wives to Dignitas's clinic in Switzerland, and return alone, providing a prison inmate with the means to kill himself would be an unlawful act. Yet there is a strong sentiment in favour of allowing close relatives to help their loved ones end their lives when it becomes too unbearable to endure.

As for the blue writing, I'm sorry if it frightened you. It's a commonly used device here to emphasise a point that the writer fears is being missed, and no-one else gets scared when it is used. In other words, don't be such a bloody big girl's blouse.

[thir]

what do people think about convicted murderers being allowed to commit suicide? Should this be permitted? .

In short, yes.

[DuncanONeil]

This process would seem to be in opposition to your stated belief that under no circumstances is it proper to take a life?


Regardless of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment, and that debate might still rumble on in the other thread for a while http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21871 , what do people think about convicted murderers being allowed to commit suicide? Should this be permitted? I have no trenchant views on this, although I do incline towrds the belief that suicide is not to be encourged.