Choosing the death penalty (1 Viewer)

[geoffspins]

Should somebody who was not sentenced to death be allowed to be put to death by the state?


A rapist and murderer is to be put to death in Belgium this week, despite Europe’s ban on the death penalty, after a court granted him the right to euthanasia.


Frank Van Den Bleeken, 52, is not physically ill but claims his “psychological suffering” is unbearable and that he would prefer to die than spend more of his life behind bars.


He says he has no prospect of ever being released from prison as he cannot overcome his uncontrollable sexual impulses, and that he does not wish another two or three decades in jail.


His application to die was accepted by Belgium’s Federal Euthanasia Commission in September, and over the weekend, official gave approval for him to be taken to a specialist clinic on Sunday, where he will be killed by lethal injection.


Full story:

Belgian rapist and murderer to be put to death by lethal injection - Telegraph

 

[jrdbrn]

Save money and shoot his head off.

 

[Saintman2884]

Why I am supposed to show empathy for a violent sociopath who says he says he's suffered psychologically for brutally raping and killing innocent women? My initial answer to this man's "suffering" is tough ****, and that's being modest because I could easily say a lot worse about pathetic scum like this, but I don't want to risk being banned or start some 5-page long EE thread with SR posters opposed to the death penalty. I have stated numerous times in past threads that sociopaths, spree-or-method serial killing psychopaths, pedophiles, can't be viewed within the same prism of whether reform/rehabilitation or punishment models work more effectively as deterrents in American criminal justice system to arsonists, armed robbers, even convicted murderers who are capable of showing remorse to their victims' families. Geoff, most of these factors don't relate to sociopaths like Ted Bundy, Ed Gein, Zodiac, or Peter Sutcliffe, "the Yorkshire Ripper". There incapable of showing genuine remorse, sympathy, or empathy either for their crimes or to families of the people they've hurt. Serial killers are motivated by violent, uncontrollable impulses that make them target and kill their victims at random, there's no seemingly logical motive for their crimes like revenge, hate-based crimes. Spree killers like BTK will go on massive killing sprees until the violent impulses stop for a while and then start all over again when the urges return. These types of crimes go beyond even the most traditional category of criminals due to their crimes severity, there inexplicable lack of anything resembling motives, and extreme nature and viciousness involved in some of their crimes. Google Ed Gein or Ted Bundy and you'll get a better glimpse of what I mean. Ted Bundy told FBI investigators that he probably raped close to 150 women and most people then discounted his claims but Bundy was a predator who went to great lengths to avoid detection for his crimes, he knew all about in the cracks in law enforcement working as a police dispatcher in King County, WA to know how to avoid police connecting him to his killings, what kind of people he could stalk and kill like prostitutes, and drug addicts that authorities wouldn't spend too much time investigating.

If you're against the death penalty, Geoff, and believe this nation's penal system needs to emphasize more a reform-minded incarceration model to reduce recidivism, how you can expect to reform the most extreme, severe pathological criminals who choose their victims randomly because they like "playing God" choosing who lives and who dies on _____ particular day. How can you hope that eventually they'll show remorse for there crimes when sociopaths, psychopaths when forensic scientists, criminal profilers tell us there incapable of that in the first place? This isn't me cherry-picking to prove an opinion, it's well-documented, researched scientific facts.

 

[seandroog]

Nope.

If the man wants to kill himself, he will use his clothes tied into a noose or something. I would rather imagine him kill himself that way, and would be a lot cheaper.

You can only protect anyone from themselves to a point.

 

[Severum]

If you're against the death penalty, Geoff, and believe this nation's penal system needs to emphasize more a reform-minded incarceration model to reduce recidivism, how you can expect to reform the most extreme, severe pathological criminals who choose their victims randomly because they like "playing God" choosing who lives and who dies on _____ particular day. How can you hope that eventually they'll show remorse for there crimes when sociopaths, psychopaths when forensic scientists, criminal profilers tell us there incapable of that in the first place? This isn't me cherry-picking to prove an opinion, it's well-documented, researched scientific facts.

I don't think this has much to do with Geoff's views on our death penalty or incarceration models. The question is whether a state that allows euthanasia should let prisoners opt for euthanasia. European countries do not allow capital punishment so there's also the question of whether voluntary euthanasia could turn into de facto capital punishment.

Voluntary euthanasia for non-prisoners is a much different issue than capital punishment. I'm completely in favor of allowing people to end their life if they choose to and completely opposed to the death penalty. The state should not have the power to end your life or prevent you from ending your life.

Allowing prisoners voluntary euthanasia is a bit different since the state is responsible for their care and safety. Care would have to be taken to prevent government abuses and rash decisions by inmates. There's also the question of whether we should allow people an easy out of their sentence. I tend to support voluntary euthanasia for prisoners, but I can see many valid concerns.

 

[geoffspins]

Saintman - Severum explained my question better than I apparently did!! I admit I was rather vague.

It's an interesting moral dilemma. Let's say John Doe in New York, where they don't have the death penalty, is sentenced to life plus 100 years. In other words he's going to die in prison. Should he have a right to demand euthanasia? Obviously I get the argument that I, as a taxpayer don't want to foot the bill for keeping him in prison for 50 years.

But how about another John Doe who has ten years for manslaughter? He's lost his wife and kids, has limited prospects upon release. Should he be allowed to opt for euthanasia? Where would the line be drawn? Should it even be an option? I just read the article and it struck me as peculiar. I honestly don't know my own opinion on the question and that's partly why I posted!!

 

[Lurkaholic]

If a prisoner wants to be put to death, then he should be allowed to be put to death - not by the state, but by himself, through dignified, pharmaceutical means. I feel that every human should have this right, regardless of incarceration status or illness.

 

[You]

Just sooo sorry to hear that his prison stay isn't going well...
Soo very sorry

 

[Saint77]

I'm not so sure id be too caring overly much about the way he dies, as long as he dies.

 

[Saintman2884]

But you have to understand, Lurk, that in some situations there's going to be victims' families that will object to a convicted murder being allowed to take the "easy way out", that he isn't being made to pay, i.e. suffer by rotting in prison for the rest of his adult life. Even if he never apologizes or shows little to no remorse for killing, raping, sexually assaulting their loved ones, they'll take some solace that his life imprisonment brings them some closure, a measure of restorative justice. Are they wrong in objecting to the idea that some murderers now have the option to end their lives with dignity due to extreme psychological stress, while their victims were robbed of any future choices due to being murdered. From victim advocates perspective, this whole thing reeks of , morally, self-righteous bureaucratic ********. Those victims families are perfectly justified to feel this way and to unintentionally minimize there feelings of loss and pain over murdered loved ones is cruel, elitist, and insensitive.

Tell me why should I accept that a man who raped and murdered numerous women 30 years ago, some after he was first released from prison, deserves the right to die with dignity that he denied to his victims. From a cost-cutting budget perspective, its a sound, logical decision, but don't expect me to think that this rapist, and others like him, aren't despicable human beings worthy of being humanized. If that makes me vindictive and cynical, so be it.

 

[superchuck500]

As for the U.S., I don't see any mechanism that would allow such an "application", much less for it ever to be granted and performed.

It just wouldn't happen here. The inmate would have to figure out another way to end his life.

 

[Lurkaholic]

But you have to understand, Lurk, that in some situations there's going to be victims' families that will object to a convicted murder being allowed to take the "easy way out", that he isn't being made to pay, i.e. suffer by rotting in prison for the rest of his adult life. Even if he never apologizes or shows little to no remorse for killing, raping, sexually assaulting their loved ones, they'll take some solace that his life imprisonment brings them some closure, a measure of restorative justice. Are they wrong in objecting to the idea that some murderers now have the option to end their lives with dignity due to extreme psychological stress, while their victims were robbed of any future choices due to being murdered. From victim advocates perspective, this whole thing reeks of , morally, self-righteous bureaucratic ********. Those victims families are perfectly justified to feel this way and to unintentionally minimize there feelings of loss and pain over murdered loved ones is cruel, elitist, and insensitive.

Tell me why should I accept that a man who raped and murdered numerous women 30 years ago, some after he was first released from prison, deserves the right to die with dignity that he denied to his victims. From a cost-cutting budget perspective, its a sound, logical decision, but don't expect me to think that this rapist, and others like him, aren't despicable human beings worthy of being humanized. If that makes me vindictive and cynical, so be it.

Victims' families don't decide what happens to the person accused of the crime in this country. Have you never seen the many families who campaign to have their loved ones' killers death sentences commuted to life in prison? Does anyone ever stop an execution because of this? Not hardly. A person deserves to die with dignity because he's a human being. Our government wholly agrees with this, as evidenced by the constitutional constraints put on administering the death penalty, as does our society when we provide other customary acts to the condemned such as last meals, last rites, etc, even though those things are not generally required by any particular law. You should really read more Jesus; he was rather clear in his insistence that man show humanity to man regardless of circumstances.

 

[krushing]

As for the U.S., I don't see any mechanism that would allow such an "application", much less for it ever to be granted and performed.

It just wouldn't happen here. The inmate would have to figure out another way to end his life.

Even in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal? I guess inmate would have to prove he was dying anyway. Just wondering since we kept hearing about quality of life as a determiner in some state laws. Couldn't one argue in states that allow assisted suicide that quality of life is pretty low in jail.

 

[crosswatt]

I guess to me it brings into question exactly what intended role prison is supposed to play in a society. Is it strictly to punish? Is it supposed to aid in rehabilitation? Or is it simply to separate those who cannot function suitably within the frameworks of the rules that said society has delineated?

If it is strictly for the first, then no, he should be made to serve his sentence fully, or until his naturally occurring death. But I don't think anyone would ever willfully support, at least publicly, prison as only a punitive response to crime.

By his own admission he is not a candidate for rehabilitation, so the second option is out in this circumstance, regardless of societal intent.

So, leaving us with the third option, either course of action would keep him removed from the opportunity to victimize someone else, so it in a sense defaults to societies standing on suicide/euthanasia.

I philosophically support the death penalty for the most heinous of offenses, although I am conflicted in my personal feelings about taking a human life. I actually see this guy's request as somewhat of a win-win. The state no longer has to pay for him to live in prison, no morally debatable ruling was issued by the government, and a predatory sociopath is removed from existence.

 

[superchuck500]

Even in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal? I guess inmate would have to prove he was dying anyway. Just wondering since we kept hearing about quality of life as a determiner in some state laws. Couldn't one argue in states that allow assisted suicide that quality of life is pretty low in jail.

I think those laws are applicable to "terminally ill" people. It's an interesting idea but I still think it's highly unlikely.