Right to Die debate: Belgian murderer granted euthanasia in prison

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

Looking at history and how prison escapes became less and less, the need for executions went he same way.
You could put someone in prison for life because one could be assured the security would keep the person locked away from society.

If prisons weren't secure, the death penalty would still exist for murderers.
For society in the past, the death penalty was the best option for the safety of the public. We don't worry about dangerous prisoners escaping these days.

RobertKK

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

How does that affect you though? Whether he's dead or in prison he's no longer an issue for you. Unless you have some need for him to be suffering in some way.

It is basically saying if someone is suicidal, we should help them die, and not give them mental healthcare.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

seamus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Aren't robbed of their lives......by being killed?

To clarify, one the major downfalls of the death penalty is that it's impossible to guarantee an innocent man won't be put to death.
If you offer the choice of death for violent crimes, then at least ethically you can know that the person has chosen to die, an innocent person hasn't had their life forcibly taken from them.

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

To clarify, one the major downfalls of the death penalty is that it's impossible to guarantee an innocent man won't be put to death.
If you offer the choice of death for violent crimes, then at least ethically you can know that the person has chosen to die, an innocent person hasn't had their life forcibly taken from them.

Except it's not really ethical. A person may be so convinced they have no hope despite the fact they're innocent and just decide to end it there and then.

Could you support people in general having the option to be euthanized, despite being physically fine?

Akrasia

More details have emerged on this case. Apparently, the reason the guy wants to die is partly due to anguish that he has these uncontrollable urges to commit violence and he can not live with the psychological suffering of knowing that he has committed great harm, and would commit more harm if he was ever given the opportunity

He has been assessed by many psychiatrists and they agree that the guy is probably 'incurable.'

osarusan

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This will upset people.

"These murderers should be strung up! Wasting tax payer money feeding him in prison?!"

"But that's what he wants."


"He shouldn't have the right to die! Let him rot in prison!"

"... But you just said..."

"Shut up PC BRIGADE"

Spot on.

seamus

Ush1 wrote: »

Except it's not really ethical. A person may be so convinced they have no hope despite the fact they're innocent and just decide to end it there and then.

Agreed that it's not whiter-than-white but it's certainly a world away from a death sentence because the individual is still given the domain over their life.

Could you support people in general having the option to be euthanized, despite being physically fine?

In principle, yes. Because life being unbearable is not limited to physical pain or physical limitations, and we have to acknowledge that at least for the foreseeable future that there are many psychological conditions that are beyond treatment and leave one with unbearable suffering.

In theory I see no reason why people shouldn't be permitted to just end it, even if they're not suffering. "I'm bored, I'd like to check out". It's their life, they should be free to do with it as they see fit.
But there is obviously a middle ground here - nobody wants to die, they do it because they see no other option, no other point in being here. So obviously there is an onus on society to help them, to open up the world to them and let them see the options, let them see what the rest of us see when we enjoy life. But there will always be those for whom it's not possible, and for them when faced with voluntary euthanasia or being forcibly locked up in an institution for their own protection, I think the former is easily the better of two evils.

Amirani

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Murder and rape are more common in countries that have severe sentencing, such as the United States, than it is in Scandanavia countries (or even Canada where you seem to be located). There's very little evidence to suggest that more punitive sentences have any significant effect on murder and rape levels.

Grayson

Akrasia wrote: »

More details have emerged on this case. Apparently, the reason the guy wants to die is partly due to anguish that he has these uncontrollable urges to commit violence and he can not live with the psychological suffering of knowing that he has committed great harm, and would commit more harm if he was ever given the opportunity

He has been assessed by many psychiatrists and they agree that the guy is probably 'incurable.'

I was going to mention this. It says something about the guy that he would rather die before he committed another crime.
People label them monsters but I'm pretty certain this guy would do anything to make himself better so he could have a normal life. Knowing what you're like and having that much self hatred, yet being unable to change, must be horrible.

That he'd rather kill himself rather than have those insane urges shows an element of humanity that most people would deny he had.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

It is like playing monopoly, you are sent to jail, but you have the get out of jail card.
It is the prisoner deciding his fate, and not the justice system.

Actually to complete that analogy, wouldn't using the get out of jail free card mean you had to quit the game immediately and never, ever play monopoly again?

pickarooney

seamus wrote: »

But there is obviously a middle ground here - nobody wants to die, they do it because they see no other option, no other point in being here. So obviously there is an onus on society to help them, to open up the world to them and let them see the options, let them see what the rest of us see when we enjoy life. But there will always be those for whom it's not possible, and for them when faced with voluntary euthanasia or being forcibly locked up in an institution for their own protection, I think the former is easily the better of two evils.

What about all the millions of people who believe in an afterlife or reincarnation? There must be loads who can't wait to die and get out of their ****ty existence and into a better one. Should we try and stop this based on our beliefs that they're very badly mistaken?

youtube!

Slightly off topic but one that always nade me curious, What concoction of drugs do they use to euthanase a person and is it in effect the same as the lethal injection used in death penalty cases? Reason I ask is because it seems lately that the old lethal injection doesn't seem to be always effective due to the prisons being unable to always procure the right drugs.

Billy86

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Murder and rape are more common in countries that have severe sentencing, such as the United States, than it is in Scandanavia countries (or even Canada where you seem to be located). There's very little evidence to suggest that more punitive sentences have any significant effect on murder and rape levels.

Even within the US itself, the murder rate is higher on a state by state basis for those with the death penalty than without.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Of the top 22 murder rates (by state) in the US, only three do not have the death penalty. Those three are Michigan (4th highest) , Illinois (12th) and New Mexico (14th), all of which have massive drug/poverty/gang issues in certain areas.

Always found that interesting, really does negate the "kill them all, scare society straight!" mentality.

Riddle101

I don't know about prisoners, but I do think people should be given the choice of assisted suicide outside of prison. For instance I would have it, that if I ever ended up getting Alzheimer's disease, I would like to apply for the option of assisted suicide. I hate the thought of Alzheimer's because I've seen it first hand with my grand mother. It's a terrible disease and wouldn't want to live with it.

Da Shins Kelly

Apparently part of his argument was that the state failed to provide him with adequate therapy and he asked to be transferred to a specialist psychiatric facility in the Netherlands, so it sounds like there's been some failing on the state's part. The whole thing could raise some questions about the level of mental health assistance bring offered to prisoners in Belgium the first place.

Part of the argument too was that he is suffering mental anguish because he has no prospect of being released. Pretty weak argument. If you get life imprisonment for rape and murder, you should really accept that you might not be released and that shouldn't really be a valid reason for seeking or being granted the right to assisted suicide.

On one hand, I do feel like he should be made to live out his sentence. He was given life in prison, not life in prison with the option of euthanasia once you've realized what a sh*tty person you are. The family of one of his victims isn't happy about it either, saying that he has received more attention and care than they ever did in the aftermath of their loved one bring murdered, and he should be made to serve his time as it was handed down. I'd kinda be inclined to agree and I sympathize with them if they feel like justice is being evaded here.

On the other hand, it sounds like nothing is going to be done for him at this stage. I'm sure it costs quite a bit of money to keep him (although I wonder what kind of bill these legal proceedings and the eventual euthanasia are running up) and if he wants to die, it's hardly much of a loss to society. It's just that this seems like a complicated case. How do you even prove that a condition like his is incurable?

Funnily enough, on a related note, hasn't Ian Brady been whinging about his right to die for years now? He's probably wishing he committed his crimes in Belgium.

seamus

pickarooney wrote: »

What about all the millions of people who believe in an afterlife or reincarnation? There must be loads who can't wait to die and get out of their ****ty existence and into a better one. Should we try and stop this based on our beliefs that they're very badly mistaken?

I would like to see if that's actually the case. More likely there are loads of people who can't wait for the afterlife but aren't willing to voluntarily go and check if it's there.

If so many millions of people are so sure that there's an afterlife which is better than this one, why are they so reluctant to die?

As a philosophical exercise however, if someone is convinced that they need to die and they are only making that decision for themselves and not for someone else, then why do I get domain to tell them that they can't?

With caveats in place of course to ensure that they're fully aware of the decision they're making and the effects it will have.

krudler

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This will upset people.

"These murderers should be strung up! Wasting tax payer money feeding him in prison?!"

"But that's what he wants."


"He shouldn't have the right to die! Let him rot in prison!"

"... But you just said..."

"Shut up PC BRIGADE"

He should be killed! but only in the way we find acceptable! rabble rabble rabble!

seamus

Billy86 wrote: »

Even within the US itself, the murder rate is higher on a state by state basis for those with the death penalty than without.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Of the top 22 murder rates (by state) in the US, only three do not have the death penalty. Those three are Michigan (4th highest) , Illinois (12th) and New Mexico (14th), all of which have massive drug/poverty/gang issues in certain areas.

Always found that interesting, really does negate the "kill them all, scare society straight!" mentality.

There are suggestions that heavily punitive justice systems in fact encourage otherwise "ordinary" crimes to become more violent because of the "in for a penny" mentality. That is, if armed burglary gets you 20 years in prison, then you can't make things much worse by killing the occupants. In fact you reduce your chances of being caught by increasing the violence in your crime and eliminating the witnesses.

On the other hand, if it's 8 years with the chance of parole for that crime, then you know that if you assault the occupants, never mind kill them, it becomes a much more severe sentence, so you may make more of an effort to avoid any interaction.

krudler

I'm going to play a drinking game today, a shot for every time "liberal" "bleeding heart" or the double points accumulator "pc brigade" are used on this thread, I expect to be dead by page 5, send my widow a ham.

bb1234567

pickarooney wrote: »

What difference does it make to anyone how much he suffers? How does it affect your life or the lives of his victims' families?

do you have family members who were raped and murdered? Im sure the criminals treatment would make a big difference to a lot of people actually. If it were my daughter/mother/sister who had suffered at his hands I would want him to rot in jail for the rest of his days, death is much too easy for him.

Davarus Walrus

Jesus, yet another edge case involving profound moral choices to be discussed. This one is a tough one to call. Far-right reactionary, or limp-wristed meh masquerading as liberalism?

catallus

There's an awful lot of high-falutin talk going on here about this bag of scum.

The only reason he's in the news is because he has nothing better to do all day than pull the belly off himself (probably whilst fantasizing about his victims) and the perverse lunatics running the penitentiaries there have nothing better to do than to cement their liberalistic wankeries in their own navel-gazing eyes by bending over backwards to facilitate his whims.

If this guy were put to hard-labour 20 hours a day, breaking rocks or digging holes or whatever, I'm sure he'd have a lot less time to think about his "psychological pain"

moc moc a moc

I'm OK with it as long as he's raped to death.

SligoQueries

moc moc a moc wrote: »

I'm OK with it as long as he's raped to death.

Congratulations! You won the random draw, and get to, "Bang a Belgian to DEATH"!

Pat Mustard

It seems to me that some people may be combining two separate issues:

First, that this man is a prisoner, serving a sentence for particularly serious crimes.

Secondly, that this man has been found to have a right to die, in a country which permits euthanasia.

Van den Bleeken's punishment is imprisonment. Loss of liberty is the extent of it, really. The punishment isn't working the salt mines, and it isn't a diet of stale bread and water, and it isn't denial of euthanasia.

As the man is imprisoned in a country which already permits euthanasia, I don't see why he should be denied euthanasia simply because he is a prisoner. Would people say the same thing if he was in a Belgian prison for not paying a parking fine?

From his perspective, he would end his own suffering.

From society's perspective, he'd never leave prison alive, and the taxpayers would be saved the cost of his care and upkeep.

Might be a bit macabre to say it, but it seems like it would be a win-win situation.

MRnotlob606

what a cowardice thing to do,

con___manx1

OscarXC7 wrote: »

He is a murderer. He should be made serve the full sentence for the crimes he committed. He does not deserve to be allowed to die just because he is suffering. He clearly did not care about the suffering of his victim(s) while he raped and murdered them.

Totally agree the more psychological anguish that murderer has the better . He should be left to rot in his sell for eternity

Skylinehead

krudler wrote: »

I'm going to play a drinking game today, a shot for every time "liberal" "bleeding heart" or the double points accumulator "pc brigade" are used on this thread, I expect to be dead by page 5, send my widow a ham.

catallus wrote: »

The only reason he's in the news is because he has nothing better to do all day than pull the belly off himself (probably whilst fantasizing about his victims) and the perverse lunatics running the penitentiaries there have nothing better to do than to cement their liberalistic wankeries in their own navel-gazing eyes by bending over backwards to facilitate his whims.

Drink.

Micky Dolenz

The man is clearly mentally unstable, he himself declares he has uncontrollable urges to cause harm which gives him great mental anguish. Doctors agree. It actually strengthens his case when it should probably weaken it.Sound in mind and all that.

Is it a condition that can be controlled long term? I don't know, but it is probably worth a shot.

It would be interesting to know if he is an organ donor, maybe his death will save others. Redemption may be forth coming after all.