Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Convicted serial rapist to be voluntarily euthanised in Belgium'

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    So anybody that has a different opinion to you is talking nonsense?

    Also I am not stooping to a criminals level by being of the opinion that this guy is being let of lightly!

    How the hell is it wrong to make him live with his consequences?

    I would imagine they just think making somebody suffer for the sake of it is nonsense. I know I do.


  • Options
    #93
    PLUG71
    Registered Users Posts: 640 ✭✭✭PLUG71


    floggg wrote: »
    But what does it do for them exactly? Other than satisfy their desire to see another person suffer?

    That's not something I want done in my name or behalf as a citizen and taxpayer.

    And what does it do for society? How do we benefit as a whole by that?

    It should not be so much about us and more about the victims!


  • Options
    #94
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    Such pc bull****!
    Explain how the term 'PC' applies here.

    Seriously, you're coming over like a walking emotive talking point who is trying to get all the facts and details wrong at this point. I'm not joking, you're so far off base on so many things that you almost appear to be on a wind up.


  • Options
    #95
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    Such pc bull****!
    i knew you'd come out with "pc" it doesn't exist. what i said is fact. either you condemn such a crime full stop or you condone it full stop. if you condemn it (which i should hope you would) you do for all. if you condone it for a criminal, you condone it for all

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #96
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    No.
    I posted a thread on this some time ago but it's locked now. has the deed been done yet


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    andymurph
    Registered Users Posts: 3 ✭andymurph


    Personally, I'm on the fence with euthanasia, but in this case I would be strongly against it. IMO, when you commit such a crime you shouldn't have this option as you lose your normal rights as a citizen.


  • Options
    #98
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    end of the road wrote: »
    i knew you'd come out with "pc" it doesn't exist. what i said is fact. either you condemn such a crime full stop or you condone it full stop. if you condemn it (which i should hope you would) you do for all. if you condone it for a criminal, you condone it for all

    Pfft, hipster.

    Someone help, I'm not good at this meaningless buzzword crap!


  • Options
    #99
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    It should not be so much about us and more about the victims!

    But why?

    What's the point of a dispassionate, impartial and objective justice system if sentencing and punishment is to be all about the victims?

    If criminal justice was about appeasing and satisfying the victim, sentencing would be disproportionally excessive. You'd see life sentences handed out for a minor assault or theft, and conditions would be barbaric and cruel.

    And what do you do about "victimless crime". If sentencing is all about victims, what do you do if the victim is dead already and left behind no family. Let them go?

    Or how do you handle conflicting demands for victims regarding punishment of the same crime.

    Also, a system that sanctions the infliction of pain and suffering in order to give others pleasure of relief doesn't sound very just or fair to me, and not something I would want any part of.


  • Options
    #100
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    andymurph wrote: »
    Personally, I'm on the fence with euthanasia, but in this case I would be strongly against it. IMO, when you commit such a crime you shouldn't have this option as you lose your normal rights as a citizen.

    What's the benefit of keeping him alive, though?


  • Options
    #101
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?

    Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.


  • Options
    #103
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    PLUG71 wrote: »
    That is not the point!!

    He is being given the right to have the choice to die.

    Medical treatment has nothing to do with this and he should be treated if required!

    He did the crime and should not be let off because basically he decides enough is enough!

    You don't know what you're talking about mate. If he was suffering from a some curable but agonising disease he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through medical treatment. If he was suffering from a terminal and painful condition he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through euthanasia. If he was suffering from a debilitating condition like Alzheimer's or something causing extreme mental suffering he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through euthanasia as well.

    You just want the suffering to continue, because it's mental rather than physical, because you're a sadist. Though I'd imagine that you'd be quite happy for him to be tortured as well.

    And if you took the time to read the article you'd see that he already served the sentence required of him and REFUSED parole. He's not been let off anything, FFS!


  • Options
    #104
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.

    When you opt for euthanasia you are given a drink to drink....it basically slowly puts you to sleep and stops your heart. I know two people who have euthanised themselves. One woman had her family around her and said "So what shall we drink to?" It was kind of weird.


  • Options
    #105
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭SeanW


    end of the road wrote: »
    if you condone an eye for an eye, your saying its okay to do more or less the same to the criminal that the criminal has done, meaning you sanction and condone such a crime
    Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

    Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

    Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.


  • Options
    #106
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    Egginacup wrote: »
    When you opt for euthanasia you are given a drink to drink....it basically slowly puts you to sleep and stops your heart. I know two people who have euthanised themselves. One woman had her family around her and said "So what shall we drink to?" It was kind of weird.

    I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.


  • Options
    #107
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    andymurph wrote: »
    Personally, I'm on the fence with euthanasia, but in this case I would be strongly against it. IMO, when you commit such a crime you shouldn't have this option as you lose your normal rights as a citizen.

    You don't lose your normal rights as a citizen. You lose your right to freedom and some ancillary rights like the right to be secure about your possessions (you can be searched for contraband). You still have many of the rights that non-prisoners have.


  • Options
    #108
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭SeanW


    floggg wrote: »
    But why?

    What's the point of a dispassionate, impartial and objective justice system if sentencing and punishment is to be all about the victims?

    If criminal justice was about appeasing and satisfying the victim, sentencing would be disproportionally excessive. You'd see life sentences handed out for a minor assault or theft, and conditions would be barbaric and cruel.

    And what do you do about "victimless crime". If sentencing is all about victims, what do you do if the victim is dead already and left behind no family. Let them go?
    Justice should indeed be all about victim. Ya know, the person who was wronged.

    Victimless crimes should be taken off the statute books or treated lightly. I.E. if there's no victim, then no-one has been harmed. So what did the perp do wrong?

    Murder would continue to be treated very harshly because the victim has suffered the ultimate loss.


  • Options
    #109
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?
    yes. execution is forced all of the time, so is therefore murder

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #110
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    SeanW wrote: »
    Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

    Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

    Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.

    What exactly does that have to do with euthanising a criminal?


  • Options
    #111
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

    I'm not sure, but think lethal injection is more standard these days.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SeanW wrote: »
    Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

    it does if the punishment is the exact same as what they did, so for rape the criminal is raped or murdered. thats a form of legitimizing the crime.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

    well as that doesn't happen, it certainly doesn't. even if it did it wouldn't.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.

    thats the fault of the system. protest or write a letter

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #113
    BetterThanThou
    Registered Users Posts: 944 ✭✭✭BetterThanThou


    Truthfully, any person who commits a series of rapes must have some mental illness causing them to do so, no normal person would do that. I'm not condoning what he did either, I don't think someone like him should ever be allowed walk free again. But the guy probably greatly regrets what he's done, considering he rejected parole, and he's been in prison 30 years, he's only 50 now, so that could easily be another 30 years he's in prison if he were kept there. He's already suffered for 30 years, 10 years more than he had been living when he went to prison. I've heard it costs something like 200k a year to keep a prisoner behind bars, I really don't see the issue with euthanasia in this particular case, I think it should be offered to more long term prisoners.


  • Options
    #114
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.
    no it shouldn't. a drink is the only way. the electric chair is as backward as those who support such nonsense. most likely bible thumping dimwits

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #115
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

    Gotta have that last bit of agony, don't you!


  • Options
    #116
    wp_rathead
    Registered Users Posts: 10,067 ✭✭✭✭wp_rathead


    BetterThanThou wrote: »
    Truthfully, any person who commits a series of rapes must have some mental illness causing them to do so, no normal person would do that. I'm not condoning what he did either, I don't think someone like him should ever be allowed walk free again. But the guy probably greatly regrets what he's done, considering he rejected parole, and he's been in prison 30 years, he's only 50 now, so that could easily be another 30 years he's in prison if he were kept there. He's already suffered for 30 years, 10 years more than he had been living when he went to prison. I've heard it costs something like 200k a year to keep a prisoner behind bars, I really don't see the issue with euthanasia in this particular case, I think it should be offered to more long term prisoners.

    People with no mental illness do horrible and cruel things everyday


  • Options
    #117
    Gael23
    Registered Users Posts: 12,091 ✭✭✭✭Gael23


    end of the road wrote: »
    no it shouldn't. a drink is the only way. the electric chair is as backward as those who support such nonsense. most likely bible thumping dimwits
    Egginacup wrote: »
    Gotta have that last bit of agony, don't you!

    Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?


  • Options
    #118
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    SeanW wrote: »
    Justice should indeed be all about victim. Ya know, the person who was wronged.

    Victimless crimes should be taken off the statute books or treated lightly. I.E. if there's no victim, then no-one has been harmed. So what did the perp do wrong?

    Murder would continue to be treated very harshly because the victim has suffered the ultimate loss.

    So if the victim wants a shoplifer jailed for life should we accede to their demands?

    And there are very few, if any, truly victimless crimes. But if you take something like insurance fraud, since a corporation doesn't have feelings how would a victim-centric approach to punishment work there?

    Since there's no human victim to appease do we give them a different type of punishment than for other types of fraud?


  • Options
    #119
    harry Bailey esq
    Registered Users Posts: 4,814 ✭✭✭harry Bailey esq


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.

    Lethal injection seems to be the norm in both instances, i remember watching a docmentary years ago about euthenasia clinics in Switzerland, basically what they do is give the patients a high dose of benzos or zopiclone,wait until they fall into a deep sleep and administer the injection.In the states,the prisoner is stapped down and injected.The fatal formula in the syringe is the same as what federal prisons use.I think it contains potassium but not arsed looking up Wikipedia


  • Options
    #120
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ryanf1 wrote: »
    Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?
    yes.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    CruelCoin
    Registered Users Posts: 4,468 ✭✭✭CruelCoin


    osarusan wrote: »
    There was a thread about this a few months ago - so many posters who would usually want him murdered painfully suddenly wanted him to have to rot in prison.

    EDIT: Here it is.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057291198

    The idea you're missing is they want him to suffer.

    Euthanasia is easy, rotting in a cell or violent murder are not.

    Not all deaths are equal.


Advertisement