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".

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

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

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.

[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?

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.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

So now we're onto rehabilitation vs. retribution?

If you view the prison's role as purely retributive then of course, roll on the gallows for the vicious bastards. I, however, believe that the purpose of a criminal justice system should be to influence society and individuals not to engage in destructive behaviour. I have a lot of faith in mental health professionals (by and large) and nowadays would therefore contend that there is no one beyond their help. And my point was precisely that: if you're an atheist or agnostic then the death penalty is preferable to life in prison.

Now, I could say that the difference is that you choose to become a serial killer and that this is where the difference lies, but of course many serial killers have severe mental ill health. Nowadays, however, they'd not go to prison but to high-security psychiatric facilities for treatment, and that's the right place for them.

Re: Wants it to happen?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

a) you're sourcing a website which is avowedly anti-euthanasia.

b) No system will be perfect, of course. The fact that so many people on death row are proven innocent so close to the date of their execution indicates this.

Better training for doctors and them not being so paternalistic reverts that problem.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So now we're onto rehabilitation vs. retribution?


No. Where did I say that? I said that in at least one historically documented case*, a prisoner has actively pursued/requested the death penalty. This goes back to my original question of whether you would allow prisoners to do so, in light of your feeling that we should give people the freedom to end your life at a time of your choosing with dignity.
Should prisoners be denied that freedom?

*I can cite others

Re: Wants it to happen?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

a) Should wwe not listen to the opinions and evidence of people who disagree with us? Is their opinion automatically to be discounted because they oppose the idea?

b) I've already said I oppose the death penalty for reasons outlined above.

What sort of better training for doctors would you propose? Doctors are human beings like everyone else and they're just as judgemental and error-prone as any other human being, regardless of their high skill levels.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

We deny them all sorts of other rights, and my point was that this question is about establishing the purpose of imprisonment. If it's to sate our desire for revenge then it's fine to off them. If it's to serve some wider purpose for the individual and society then it's absolutely NOT OK for them to elect to sidestep the process by asking the state for death.

[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.

Re: Wants it to happen?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

a) it's my scientific training again, I'm afraid; don't just look at what someone's saying but look at who's saying it too.

Having been through the front end of doctor training I definitely think something to pop the insularity and arrogance of doctors is what's needed. More communication skills and respect for lay opinions (like, erm, "I don't wanna die" in this case).

Re: Wants it to happen?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

a) If you'd read to the bottom, you'd find that the authors of the website didn't write the peice - it originally appeared as a news article in the Times.

So your opinion is that professionals in one field should listen to others when forming their opinions, especially when those others have direct, first-hand experience? Does this mean you'll start listening to me when I encourage you to get private sector experience before you start engaging with it from the public sector? *g*

Re: Wants it to happen?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

a) if you'd read even further, you'd find that it was provided by The Pro-Life Infonet...

Firstly, I think we both realise that matters of life and death are slightly different than business. And secondly, if you recall, I did explain that the whole point of the Academy was to develop that experience. :-p

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The purpose of imprisonment is manifold, including, but not limited to:

1) Punishment
2) Rehabilitation
3) Protection of society from dangerous individuals.

How well it acheives those aims and how much time/effort should be put into each is an ongoing matter for debate. However, I'm worried by the assumption that people should be forced into treatment.

Re: Wants it to happen?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

a) The aricle did first appear in the national press, however. Just because a group one happens to disagree with cites it as evidence for their POV doesn't mean that it is automatically wrong (unless it had appeared in the Guardian, of course)

Surfing about, I did find this interesting piece on how much importance members of the medical profession place on life: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2173618,00.html

[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?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

I'm not a big fan of compulsion either (and indeed successfully lobbied against it recently) but the current iteration of the Mental Health Act pre-empts us both.

[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 ;)

[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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

H

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Monty.