Orf wiv their 'eads [2]

[davywavy]

My post on capital punishment the other day appears to have sparked a fair old debate, which is always gratifying. It's interesting to note that the pro/anti camp on the poll seems fairly evenly split, which surprised me considering that LJ tends to be the natural environment of the woolly lefty and led to me thinking that the atavistic human desire for revenge is quite strong across the population.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.

Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?

^{*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.}

Comments

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I think the key difference is that in euthanasia, the euthanasee wants it to happen, whereas in most death-penalty situations the executee ain't exactly keen on it.

It's a matter of liberty, of course; the freedom to end your life at a time of your choosing with dignity and the freedom not to have your life taken against your will. It all hangs together.

Wants it to happen?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

"I'm sorry, Mrs Boggis, your husband is unlikely to ever wake from his coma. What do you want us to do?"
"Eeeh, you may as well switch the machine off, then."

For every "One", there's a "Keep me switched on regardless, thanks very much".

Re: Wants it to happen?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

A different flavour of euthanasia. I can't remember the terms but there's euthanasia with the euthanasee's active consent and then coma-PVS situations.

I'm in favour of living wills to prevent exactly this sort of situation, as it happens, as the issue of consent becomes awful murky.

Re: Wants it to happen?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The problem is that, even in systems like Hollands where active consent is legally required, the evidence suggests that a significant number of euthanased people not being 100% in favour.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So would you be in favour of prisoners being allowed to elect for the death panalty in lieu of life imprisonment?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Given the suicide rate of prisoners I think we're effectively already at this situation.

But, as I just said in a reply to your original post on this, making the state a murderer legitimises killing as a means of restitution. So, no, I ain't keen.

And as someone of little faith who doesn't necessarily believe in an afterlife, the death penalty surely therefore serves little or no deterrent purpose.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

What about the case of Carl Panzram, the first documented serial killer, who famously sprinted to the gallows and, when asked if he had any last words, barked "Yeah, hurry it up!" He was aware that not only would he never stop wanting to kill but also he would never be freed and so actively pursued the death penalty as preferable to that?

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Exactly what I was about to say. Euthanesia should involve the active choice of the participants. It is isn't a decision of the state.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So would you consider gamblers opting for suicide/euthanasia after a big loss to be legitimate? After all, they doing the same thing. "I've been unlucky for one reason or another so I'd be better off dead."

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Now you see that's an interesting question - should someone who wants to end it all because they want to escape something (e.g. gambling debts, broken heart etc.) be allowed to opt for euthanasia rather than face up to the world? The ultimate treatment for depression so to speak...

To the best of my knowledge: Suicide was frowned on by the church because too many people wanted to be with god, so they jumped off cliffs etc. to get there... so they had to make it a cardinal sin and hence it eventually became illegal. If that is true, if it was only because of religion that we're not allowed to murder ourselves, why should we not have that right if we're not religious?

However if someone wants to get away from everything because they believe it's the only way to cope then they should have to go through counciling for a couple of years, be encouraged to improve their life, and if after they've really tried to sort things out and it's still not working I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do it in a clean and comfortable way with the knowledge that their body will be taken care of and not undiscovered for weeks.

A question I'm curious about is this: if people in the future start getting to 60+, they've got limited prospects for their old age due to lack of funds etc, no children, etc. etc. etc. should they be allowed to chose to end it rather than face their 'golden years' in poverty?

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Now while I'm not sure I'm about to answer your question you do leave me with an interesting thought:

What if you gave a convicted criminal the option of life of death...

I mean if you made volentary euthanasia legal then, when someone's convicted of murder etc. give them the option to live in soletary for the rest of their miserable days or to press the button themselves that ends it all. Of course that's technically not much of an option, but with life they would get a limited amount of hope.

I am generally in favour of euthanasia though - if a living will's been made, and the person is at the point of no recovery and the family is supportive (but not pushy if the person is still conscious) then I think a person has the choice to go with dignity. If the person's a vegetable I think there's little point in sustianing a non-life. We are generally too keen to keep people alife because it makes us feel better. We need to accept death as a fact of life and deal with it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I debate this one above - there are historical instances of convicted criminals actively pursuing the death penalty. If euthanasia is to be allowed, then is it legitimate to prevent the death penalty in these cases?

[elbly.livejournal.com]

I'm in favour of the dp anyway - so as far as I'm concerned euthanasia for criminal's is an option that I'm prepared to let them go with - some do it themselves anyway, it would just save us the hassle of having to try to revive them.

WRT your actual post: I do agree with your statements earlier about giving the power of life and death to government is a worry, and infact giving it to doctors is not great all the time either, but I think we'll find that as resources run low it won't be a matter of "should we/shouldn't we" but more a case of "can we actually afford to keep them alive?"

The issue of cost raised as a comment in your former post is a harsh one, but it's going to get to that point - why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? When their situation may go on for 10's of years?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The population question is one which gets glossed over a lot but is an interesting one: if you plot a population curve from 1900 - 2100, it shows a population of 100,000,000,000 by 2100, which obviously isn't physically possible. As such, it's pretty clear that at some point within the next century something pretty dramatic is going to happen to curtail population growth.

A rhetorical answer

[applez.livejournal.com]

why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? When their situation may go on for 10's of years?

Because you can claim citizenship to a compassionate society. Or at least an enslaving (http://svtc.igc.org/cleancc/pubs/prisonfactsheet_305.pdf) one.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

"why should I, the tax payer, pay for someone to be kept alive artificially/incaserated for the rest of their natural life when they are never going to be able to contribute to society again? "

Because unless you are willing to kill them yourself, forever marking YOU as a murderer, then perhaps you shouldn't be asking that.

Why should you as a tax payer have the right to decide who lives or dies?
At what point does the ability to pay taxes (one which doesn't require ANY training I notice) grant you the right to decide such things?

I want to be part of a civilisatiuon better than me.
I am a normal person- meaning I have flaws and am weak and get fustrated and angry and would LOVE to see a whole bunch of people shot dead tomorrow.

I do not want to be part of a society that will INDULGE me in this.
I pay my taxes.
This gives me NO right to say how they are spent.
Luckily I live in a nice soft liberal democracy (*and a terribly whooly one at that). I can vote for people at election time and feel that someone is listening to my opnion.
Huzzah!
Of course no one actually IS listening... so I can express myself by typing posts to to LJ and blogs (rar!) and reading newspapers who sole aim is to PRETEND to give a shit about what I feel- so I buy copies to make 'em money! And those newspapers campaign on my behalf (or rather do whatever is required to sell more copies).

So anyway...

Feelin' somewhat cynical of late you may have noticed.
:)

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk

Hot damn, I'm used to the idea of Tories stealing the services from my community in order to give tax breaks to rich businessmen, but stealing the thoughts from my head? THAT'S a new one...

* cackle *

I am highly amused by the thought of Two Shags making dirty phone calls to your sister, though, expecially after her comment the other day about New Men being scared off whenever she says something right wing... I expect Prezza would be quite turned on by the smack of firm Tory government ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, if the phone calls aren't from John Prescott, who the hell are they from?

H

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Monty.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Does Monty have a Python, or merely an asp?

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Murder- bad thing. No.
Execution- bad thing. No.
Euthanasia? Bad thing. No.

Allow me to say here and now that if I am 97, drugged out of my face to cope with the apin, and my kids (if I ever have any) say something like- "He's in pain. It would be best to end his suferring!"- KILL MY FOOKIN KIDS!!!!!
I don't care if I am 103, pooing my pants, thnking my name is Gilbert and in constant agony!
Anyone pulls the plug on me its murder and I want the fookers locked up!

(smile)
Way I see it- I have the next, I dunno, 110,000 YEARS to be dead, yeah? I am gonna cling to the brief time I have living for all its worth!

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, the certainty of Rome. Has a lot to be said for it.

Just out of interest, Marc, where would you draw the line as far as "intentional killing = Bad thing" was concerned ... disposing of spare IVF material, abortion, suicide, soldiers fighting a "just war"? I'm not asking this to be contentious, just interested to know your views.

H

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

A human being exists when they are born (if I was being specific I would say sometime after they can exist WITHOUT serious life support tech- but don't wanna get into the whole "When does the goo become a baby debate!").
IVF material- just goo.
Abortion- as long as its goo (as opposed to China where abortion is practiced up until the MOMENT OF BIRTH!!!!!) then its not my buisness what a woman does with her body. Its goo. Its part of her. SHE decides.
Suicide- the last act of a selfish person. Their choice- you go on with ya bad self!
"A Just War"- BAWAH-HA-HA-ha-ha-hahahahahahaha!
Pa-lease!
War is hell.
But then shit happens. And when shit happens civilisaed nations drop bombs on peoples head. Oh dear.
Welcome to realpolitik. Welcome to the world of poo!
There is no such thing as a JUST WAR (World War II was not just- the Nazi's were evil and so deserved it, but if it were a just war, we would have attacked in '37).
When it comes to war- someone is shooting bullets at our soldiers? i want our soldiers to napalm the fookers- and laugh, watching the fookers burn! That's war... War is hell.

Oh but there is ONE rule in war that is not open to any negotiation.

YOU DO NOT TARGET CIVILIANS.
I dunno if people can understand the subtlety of my point here, its an obscure one I know, so maybe if I put it like this...
YOU DO NOT _EVER_ TARGET CIVILIANS!
:)

OK, so civilians get it in the neck- poo happens! When a bunch of highly trained men are firing high explosive shells... life is NOT a video game yeah? One should lfee from war zones yeah?
And no, I am not intolerant of our soldiers when they find some snotty 14 year old brick thrower, taking him around the back and kicking him in the face so hard his mother doesn't recognise him.
But the deliberate targetting of heavy ordenance/small arms fire upon civilians for the sake of hitting the civilians?

War Crime!
End of story.

:)

Just my take...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

YOU DO NOT _EVER_ TARGET CIVILIANS!

You tell 'em MArc. When you hold a controversial opinion, don't hold back!

If only you'd suggested this to people a hundred years ago, all kinds of trouble could have been avoided. Nations could have made a treaty pledging never to do such a thing. Possible in Geneva.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Allow me clarify something...
As much as I appear to be a healthy white middle-class liberal with the whole 'Oh but murder is wrong!' type affair, I think people misunderstand me.

My position is MUCH more right wing than, oh lets say, Atilla's?

Simply- I refuse to call any of the above by nice sanitised terms.
When the state murder a criminal it is not a 'execution'- it is murder.
When you turn of someones life support it is not a mercy, it is murder.
Now if you are willing to STILL go along with this, even with your nice words removed- all hail you!
Congradualtions- and thank you for not being the guilty white liberal (I find it sick making the amount of so-called right wingers who say they are all for the death penalty but then get all defensive when you say its murder! To heck with that! You wanna string up kiddie fiddlers- then DO SO! Go out and shoot 'em! Torture them maybe! Don't ask the state to live out your revenge fantasies so you can sleep in your soft bed at night you hands free of blood! Go out, kill the fucker- watch his eyes when you take the life of another human being! AM I advocating vigilantism? No- those who support the death penalty are- I am merely objection to the vaneer of respectability we place upon it! Until there is honesty- ALL I ever hear are liberals bleating! Even the most vocal detah penalty supporter- hasn't got the guts to take a cheese wire to the throat of the offender- such bullshit!)

(Oh and so as to eleborate- HATE modern execution methods as well- all nice and sanitised... you want victims rights? Give the victim a gallon of gas, a match and tie the offender to a chair- all the victim has to do is light the match! Uncivilised? What the fuck- we are gonna murder the fooker anyway- we are gonna sanction REVENGE- what asshole NOW wants to bring in uncivilised behavior! Gas chambers? Bullshit! A room filled with gas, a video camera and a spark (attached to the victims button a mile away) is more honest.
Injection? Make it an empty syringe and make the person administrating it STARE THE GUY IN THE EYES as he does so... at least with hanging the executioner had the decency to talk to the victim before hand!)

I think murder is a bad thing.
if my society decides it thinks certain types of murder are not so bad- that#s cool. I won;t rock the boat. But at least have the courage to call it what it is...