# Voluntary Death Penalty



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Talk of Breivik's pride over his murders has ignited debates over the death penalty. It will come as no surprise that I think the death penalty is barbaric, and can serve only as revenge, which is the mark of an uncivilised society.

I've occasionally thought about a twist on it, though - a person spending life in prison without the possibility of parole being granted the option to be humanely killed. The reason why I've considered this is that I think prison should _not_ be a place where the law-abiding send criminals in order to punish them for their misdeeds, but where we send people to either rehabilitate them, or, if they are beyond "repair", keep them from harming others again.

It's fairly obvious that many people - Breivik being one such example - could be beyond the help of psychiatric and medical treatments (I don't know enough about psychosis to be sure). If they are irreparably psychotic, they shouldn't be viewed as evil people worthy of a good hanging, they should be viewed as unfortunately broken, having caused tragic damage, and appropriately imprisoned in a humane environment. However, given that the _sole_ purpose of such a person's incarceration should be protection of the public, not prolonged punishment, I think perhaps they should be allowed a kind of criminal's euthanasia if they don't want to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Either option serves the same purpose.

This is just a preliminary thought, so please pick it apart - I want to see where it goes. The initial problems I see regard implementation (this would be ripe for exploitation, but nevertheless the _theory_ of it could be sound); the sanity of the prisoners and their ability to decide to end their lives; and, if prison is properly treated as a place for rehabilitation and safety, it ought to be an environment of such quality that a prisoner would want to live their natural life.

Hmmm... I'll ponder it some more.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I would say I agree with essentially everything you have stated. The one concern, as you mention, is the possibility that others would pressure a criminal to accept death when they don't really want to die. The issue is identical to euthanasia of terminally ill patients. Theoretically, someone might want to end their life to prevent more pain or perhaps to terminate the negative aspects of life in prison. Assuming we were confident that the prisoner or terminally ill patient was making an uncoerced, well considered, and well informed choice, I see no problem with the policy.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Agree with the above posts.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

There's the problem of somebody like Breivik actually wanting to be put to death, as an act of martyrdom, to attract attention and sympathy to his views.

That aside, I can see it being offered as a choice for criminals convicted of the very worst crimes. If you're been convicted of, let's say, serial murder, but you are in fact innocent, you wouldn't opt for capital punishment, because you would hope to be exonerated in time. If you're guilty, though, and considered beyond rehabilitation, you might actually prefer death to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

However, a justice system which is meant to be punitive above all other considerations might determine which option you prefer, and deliberately do the opposite.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Prepare for another G&C geezer input.

The #1 problem with your proposal is it's 'should be' regarding the prison environment. A) it is _not_ 'a place for rehabilitation' for most convicts, and B) it is _not_ 'an environment of such quality that a prisoner [without hope of parole] would want to live their natural life [there]'. There is a hedge for clause B) in that some inmates become so acclimated to life 'inside' that they cannot function 'outside'.)

Maybe you want to assume that the needed prison environment exists, and go on from there?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I thought that much was obvious


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> I thought that much was obvious


Well jeez, there you go thinking again. Not a lot is 'obvious' to G&C geezers.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Prepare for another G&C geezer input.
> 
> The #1 problem with your proposal is it's 'should be' regarding the prison environment. A) it is _not_ 'a place for rehabilitation' for most convicts, and B) it is _not_ 'an environment of such quality that a prisoner [without hope of parole] would want to live their natural life [there]'. There is a hedge for clause B) in that some inmates become so acclimated to life 'inside' that they cannot function 'outside'.)
> 
> Maybe you want to assume that the needed prison environment exists, and go on from there?


I thought the use of my many "shoulds" made it clear that I know prison is currently far from the state required for this kind of thing.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Inevitably this thread brings to mind the topic of Robert Maudsley. Here's the Wikipedia article on him. It's not all that long, so please read through it, and ask yourself what society should do with this guy:
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maudsley*

I am not sure myself. He's quite intelligent and articulate--he has been interviewed by the Times. He doesn't expect to ever be released from prison, because he knows that nobody would ever be able to trust him.

What happens if a prisoner like Robert Maudsley is completely rehabilitated--as Maudsley seems to be? Shouldn't he walk free? Isn't this what is supposed to happen?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Inevitably this thread brings to mind the topic of Robert Maudsley. Here's the Wikipedia article on him. It's not all that long, so please read through it, and ask yourself what society should do with this guy:
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maudsley*
> 
> ...


Oh, and according to the Guardian:

*"Maudsley has a genius-level IQ, loves classical music, poetry and art. He is keen to take an Open University degree in music theory. Friends and family describe him as gentle, kind and highly intelligent. They enjoy both his company and his sense of humour."*

The article doesn't say exactly what kind of classical music he likes, though.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Inevitably this thread brings to mind the topic of Robert Maudsley. Here's the Wikipedia article on him. It's not all that long, so please read through it, and ask yourself what society should do with this guy:
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maudsley*
> 
> ...


The Wiki article doesn't say anything about his potential rehabilitation, but it's an interesting case. Certainly, if he is completely rehabilitated, he should be released - the real question is whether or not we have tools robust enough to test that beyond doubt. It's conceivable that he could be an extremely intelligent sociopath who knows the right answers to all the right questions without an ounce of feeling behind them. Either way, if we cannot be certain, he should be allowed to pursue an OU degree and other things while in prison.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I thought the use of my many "shoulds" made it clear that I know prison is currently far from the state required for this kind of thing.


Yes; clear. But sir, just how hypothetical do you want to take your concept, given that basic requirements don't exist? Don't you need to work out something constructive about the 'what it is' before you worry about 'what could be' if that basic requirement is something better than it is?

I would mention 'pie in the sky', except I don't know why anyone would want pie in the sky. It's better than having 2x4's in the sky, but still...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yes; clear. But sir, just how hypothetical do you want to take your concept, given that basic requirements don't exist? Don't you need to work out something constructive about the 'what it is' before you worry about 'what could be' if that basic requirement is something better than it is?


My main motivation for the thread was seeing what people thought of the concept of a voluntary death penalty in the right circumstances - I think an acknowledgement of the fact that current circumstances are not right is enough; I'm not interested at this particular moment in constructing an image of an adequate prison system.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Polednice said:


> The Wiki article doesn't say anything about his potential rehabilitation, but it's an interesting case. Certainly, if he is completely rehabilitated, he should be released - the real question is whether or not we have tools robust enough to test that beyond doubt.


We don't, of course, in the end. It's always a risk. He knows that, in his case, this risk is never likely to be taken. He knows he's going to die in prison.

Basically, what he always seems to be saying is that he wants relief from sensory deprivation. And there are a great many extenuating circumstances in the background of his case.


----------

