Should prisoners be allowed to chose Death?

Daithi McGee

Watching sky news I was hurt by the way various crimes played out but one struck me. He looked Guilty. He looked like he would die to bring the kids back.

Should that be an option? Offer your life for your crime?

dr.bollocko

No.

No, they shouldn't be able to pick their own punishment.

SV

no.

death is often much better than a life of imprisonment.

Degsy

Daithi McGee wrote: »

Watching sky news I was hurt by the way various crimes played out but one struck me. He looked Guilty. He looked like he would die to bring the kids back.

Should that be an option? Offer your life for your crime?

But that wont bring back the victim will it?Unless we can somehow merege the criminal justice system with some kind of voodoo.

Jet Black

Life should mean life.

Pigwidgeon

let them rot i say, if you cant do the time don't do the crime.
too right he should feel guilty.

dr.bollocko

"We are all conceived in close prison; in our mothers wombs, we are close prisoners all; when we are born, we are born but to the liberty of the house; prisoners still, though within larger walls; and then all our life is but a going out to the place of execution, to death."

AlmightyCushion

dr.bollocko wrote: »

"We are all conceived in close prison; in our mothers wombs, we are close prisoners all; when we are born, we are born but to the liberty of the house; prisoners still, though within larger walls; and then all our life is but a going out to the place of execution, to death."

So...... is that a yes or a no?

dr.bollocko

See post #2!

"Crucifixion?"

"No, freedom"

CHD

Should OP be allowed start these type of threads.

kmart6

No,they should do the time!

Guy:Incognito

No, it should be forced on them.


Cheapest option = best for society. Get them in, kill them within a month and theres no more ridiculous €70k a year to house each of them.

Shryke

If they want to kill themselves then they kill themselves. There, they've chosen death.

Also, No.

Stheno

Stekelly wrote: »

No, it should be forced on them.


Cheapest option = best for society. Get them in, kill them within a month and theres no more ridiculous €70k a year to house each of them.

+1

Agamemnon

dr.bollocko wrote: »

"We are all conceived in close prison; in our mothers wombs, we are close prisoners all; when we are born, we are born but to the liberty of the house; prisoners still, though within larger walls; and then all our life is but a going out to the place of execution, to death."

John Donne, founder of the emo movement.

Zillah

You can't really stop someone from killing themselves if they really want to so the point is largely academic.

That said, I'd lean towards no for two reasons:
- Punishment is supposed to have a deterent effect for future criminals, knowing that they can chose a dignified death may encourage a small number that fear life in prison to break the law where they might not otherwise have done so.
- Making death officially an option could result in people choosing death as a means of saving face, even those who have committed minor crimes but feel extremely guilty/ashamed.

Guy:Incognito

Zillah wrote: »

- Punishment is supposed to have a deterent effect for future criminals,

Death penalty might not be a deterrent to people becoming criminals (exactly the same as jail time there) but I find it's cuts reoffending rates by a steady 100%.

Gummy Panda

Think of the money we'd save in a recession!!

Less prisioners means less spending on the prision system.

ART6

Stekelly wrote: »

Death penalty might not be a deterrent to people becoming criminals (exactly the same as jail time there) but I find it's cuts reoffending rates by a steady 100%.

So it does. It could even be argued that in years gone by it was a deterrent too, but the rise of Islamic militants has changed all of that. In Western cultures no-one wants to die and will do everything in his/her power to avoid doing so. In Islam, martyrdom gets you seven virgins and an afterlife of luxury and plenty. So maybe the sensible approach would be to execute Western murderers etc, or allow them to commit suicide, but keep Islamic fundamentalists alive for as long as possible so that they can spend the rest of their lives in torment over the seven virgins that they can't get to:)

davyjose

That's only about .... half an hour of virgins. Then where are you left? With seven slags asking for foot-rubs. I'd rather die......... :eek:

4zn76tysfajdxp

Suicide bombers chose their deaths, why can't petty criminals?

here.from.day.1

Just no.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I think everybody should be allowed to choose death. If you're going to kill yourself, you're going to kill yourself. At least if it was done properly you could save a) a potential mess b) family finding you c) surviving only to live disabled. But then, it would be impossible to determine if the person was of sound mind. It couldn't work.

As for criminals, well, there are monsters out there with minds broken beyond repair. Perhaps they should at least be given the option. What's the point of keeping them in prison for their whole life?

thetyreman

Of course they should.

But the twist should be. The ones that choose to die,dont let
And the ones that dont want to,kill the fckers.

None of there victims were given any choices were they..

redout

Better to let them live in misery caged like the animals they are rather than choose the easy way out.

minxie

totally agree. let them rot in hell

Manic Moran

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6707865.stm

Hundreds of prisoners serving life sentences in Italy have called on President Giorgio Napolitano to bring back the death penalty.

<snip>

The letter they sent to President Napolitano came from a convicted mobster, Carmelo Musumeci, a 52-year-old who has been in prison for 17 years.

It was co-signed by 310 of his fellow lifers.

Musumeci said he was tired of dying a little bit every day.

We want to die just once, he said, and "we are asking for our life sentence to be changed to a death sentence".

NTM

biko

Yes, life should be able to be commuted to death for really serious crimes if the prisoner so chooses.

Jigsaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6707865.stm



NTM

Jesus we all make mistakes. It is well or us to be judge jury and executioner. I say a few years for first time offenders. If you do it again then throw the book at them.

Silenceisbliss

I'm surprised at the amount of people who say "no"...

I say they should be allowed to off themselves! Although prisons in Ireland aren't over-crowded, They still are draining vast quantities of the tax payers money.The Port-Laois prison estimate for keeping a prisoner for ONE year is €200,000....UNBELIEVABLE!

Remember this is a choice that a mentally sane prisoner (well, anybody really, come to think of it) should be allowed to take imo.

The reallity though is that if this was allowed, none of the hard-core criminals would be culled from the heard. The ahrd-core and serious criminals have a very integrated and cushey lifestyle in their prisons, they are the ones who have made it within the prison system, they are the ones smuggling the drugs, bribeing the gaurds, all in all living a content prison life.

The ones who would likely be pushed to choosing their own death sentance here in Ireland would more than likely be the average joe. the 25% of prisoners for example who are in there for traffic offences!. the average joe is the target for serious intimidation, the average joe doesn't have the frame of mind to fit in with the scum that is collected and created in the prison system.

so my answer is yes, the prisones should be allowed to choose their own fate, but only if it is deemed acceptable by a panel. maybe this would keep the joe soap from taking the easy way out.

dr.bollocko

Agamemnon wrote: »

John Donne, founder of the emo movement.

ROFL!

Burial

I think they shouldn't. It should be upto the victims/victims family and the criminal. Besides if they really want to end it they'd commit suicide....

thelordofcheese

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

Remember this is a choice that a mentally sane prisoner (well, anybody really, come to think of it) should be allowed to take imo.

Chosing to end your own life so you don't have to deal with your own guilt is not the sign of a sane person.

Insect Overlord

I might be wrong, but I believe it costs the US a lot more to pay for an execution than it does to keep a prisoner. It's one of those statistics that was drilled into us in Leaving Cert religious/moral education.

javaboy

kateos2 wrote: »

let them rot i say, if you cant do the time don't do the crime.

They'd rot a lot faster if we killed them immediately.

Stekelly wrote: »

Death penalty might not be a deterrent to people becoming criminals (exactly the same as jail time there) but I find it's cuts reoffending rates by a steady 100%.

I always hear about the death penalty not being a deterrent but since in the US it's only applicable for a very small number of crimes and states, is it any wonder? Now if there was a 2 strikes and you're dead rule for all offences, we might see an effect.

An Fhile wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I believe it costs the US a lot more to pay for an execution than it does to keep a prisoner. It's one of those statistics that was drilled into us in Leaving Cert religious/moral education.

How convenient that such a stat should crop up in religious education. It might cost a lot to execute a prisoner because a) they spend ages on death row anyway which probably has a much higher guard to prisoner ratio b) there must be so many lawyers involved in the various appeals and whatnot c) electricity costs are on the up. I'm sure there are a load of other reasons too but that doesn't mean it couldn't be cheaper than keeping a prisoner. It very easily could be.

Poloman

Yes they should be allowed choose death. It would save lots of money having to keep them in jail on us tax payers.

Dinter

Yes but it's carried out at a time of our choosing. Like just before one of his kids birthdays or when his wife gets really sick.

Oh and the method should be to harvest their organs (if suitable) for reparations. Apparently organs from a living donator will last up to twice as long as those that are on ice so strap 'em to a gurney and send 'em to the hospital while they're still concious enough to be frightened by it.

Obviously that'd be a tad overboard for shoplifting but we could have some kind of sliding scale.

Kold

Yes, although they should be allowed to kill themselves rather than dirty the hands of the state.

People who want these people to suffer are almost as bad as the criminals imo.

redout

Lads if you'se are so worried about the costs then why dont someone just open something like sona from prison break. I am sure if thats what criminals new they had to live in then the crime rates would drop like a hot potato.

ScumLord

All Prisoners should be put to hard labour. Pay your debt to society by filling the barrah with concrete, when your done there clean the shovels and clean up the yard too while your at it.

Kold

ScumLord wrote: »

All Prisoners should be put to hard labour. Pay your debt to society by filling the barrah with concrete, when your done there clean the shovels and clean up the yard too while your at it.

I know you're taking the piss but just in case someone here thinks something like that, the government decides what a criminal is, there is no proper definition.

Smart Bug

I think a judge-jury-executioner type option (see Judge Dredd) should be brought in. Shot on the spot - saves the heavy cost of due process and a lenghty incarceration.

Call a meat wagon!!

KnifeWRENCH

Kold wrote: »

People who want these people to suffer are almost as bad as the criminals imo.

Why? I would much prefer if murderers/rapists/people who have committed serious crimes were left to rot away in a jail cell for the rest of their lives, rather than them being executed.
Execute someone, their pain and suffering ends after a few minutes. Instead, give them a life sentence (and life should mean life) and, if possible, leave them spend that life sentence in solitary confinement. (I realise this may be impractical, I don't know much about the prison service so I'm speaking from a purely idealistic p.o.v.)

If they want to kill themselves, then by all means let a warden provide them with a chord to hang themselves. But they shouldn't expect the state to do the dirty work for them.

javaboy

Kold wrote: »

I know you're taking the piss but just in case someone here thinks something like that, the government decides what a criminal is, there is no proper definition.

Definition of a criminal: Someone who commits a crime.
Definition of a crime: Whatever the government decides is a crime.
Definition of a government: Bunch of morons elected by the public.
Defintion of the public: Bunch of morons.

Kold

javaboy wrote: »

Definition of a criminal: Someone who commits a crime.
Definition of a crime: Whatever the government decides is a crime.
Definition of a government: Bunch of morons elected by the public.
Defintion of the public: Bunch of morons.

Exactly so trying to build a proper definition on that foundation is like trying to build a house on a hill of jelly.

Kold

square_igloo wrote: »

Why? I would much prefer if murderers/rapists/people who have committed serious crimes were left to rot away in a jail cell for the rest of their lives, rather than them being executed.
Execute someone, their pain and suffering ends after a few minutes. Instead, give them a life sentence (and life should mean life) and, if possible, leave them spend that life sentence in solitary confinement. (I realise this may be impractical, I don't know much about the prison service so I'm speaking from a purely idealistic p.o.v.)

If they want to kill themselves, then by all means let a warden provide them with a chord to hang themselves. But they shouldn't expect the state to do the dirty work for them.

Well that's what I said, they should have to kill themselves.

What exactly makes you feel so much better that another human being is suffering?

javaboy

Kold wrote: »

Exactly so trying to build a proper definition on that foundation is like trying to build a house on a hill of jelly.

My point is that if the public aren't happy with the government's idea of what a crime is, they can vote for a different one. It's not like we're living in a one party state a dictatorship.

Kold

javaboy wrote: »

My point is that if the public aren't happy with the government's idea of what a crime is, they can vote for a different one. It's not like we're living in a one party state a dictatorship.

Edging closer and closer when the public believe that criminals should be bereft of human rights.

Dinter

Kold wrote: »

Exactly so trying to build a proper definition on that foundation is like trying to build a house on a hill of jelly.

The State's perception of what's a serious crime isn't retrospective. If the State decided that jaywalking was punishable by being locked in a box with starving rats although the sentence is extreme you're aware of it before you commit it.

Therefore your ignorance is no defence and what does and doesn't constitute a crime or appropriate punishment means nothing to you so long as you don't commit it in the first place.