Should prisoners be allowed to chose Death?

Silenceisbliss · 07-10-2008 07:58AM

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 · 07-10-2008 09:07AM

Agamemnon wrote: »

John Donne, founder of the emo movement.

ROFL!

Burial · 07-10-2008 09:42AM

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 · 07-10-2008 09:53AM

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 · 07-10-2008 02:54PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:06PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:08PM

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

Dinter · 07-10-2008 03:12PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:23PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:23PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:30PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:34PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:47PM

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 · 07-10-2008 03:54PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:00PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:18PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:20PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:24PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:27PM

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 · 07-10-2008 04:30PM

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.

javaboy · 07-10-2008 04:38PM

Kold wrote: »

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

Em nope. Dictatorship can be defined as government without people's consent so as long as the public are voting in their government, we won't be a dictatorship. We would just be a democracy with policies similar to many of history's dictatorships.

Daithi McGee · 07-10-2008 04:44PM

Kold wrote: »

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

Some would say were were going back to our past then. Bring back public flogging I say!

Burial · 07-10-2008 04:46PM

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.

And that scenario is unlawful. It's forcing someone to end their life. I don't know the leaglities, but I'm pretty sure it's at least assisted suicide..

An Fhille 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.

Propaganda at work!

KnifeWRENCH · 07-10-2008 05:28PM

Kold wrote:

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

Oh that part wasn't aimed at you, that was just a general remark. We agree on that point.

Kold wrote: »

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

Becuase they're paying the price for the terrible crimes they committed. They should suffer for as long as possible.

Burial wrote:

And that scenario is unlawful. It's forcing someone to end their life. I don't know the leaglities, but I'm pretty sure it's at least assisted suicide..

OK I admit that scenario is unlikely! Wouldn't call it "forced suicide" though.

Kold · 07-10-2008 07:19PM

square_igloo wrote: »

Becuase they're paying the price for the terrible crimes they committed. They should suffer for as long as possible.

Because that is what would make you feel better about the whole situation, yes?

It's ok to get off on someone's suffering if they're a criminal?

javaboy · 07-10-2008 07:24PM

Kold wrote: »

Because that is what would make you feel better about the whole situation, yes?

It's ok to get off on someone's suffering if they're a criminal?

Quick question Kold. Do you believe there should be punishment for committing crimes?

Kold · 07-10-2008 07:29PM

javaboy wrote: »

Quick question Kold. Do you believe there should be punishment for committing crimes?

I believe that crime should be dealt with in a way that benefits society, yes.

javaboy · 07-10-2008 07:37PM

Kold wrote: »

I believe that crime should be dealt with in a way that benefits society, yes.

Great but that's not exactly what I asked. In the case of someone committing a crime where there is practically no chance of them reoffending, would you still be in favour of punishment?

Or is your motivation for supporting something like jail more about the potential rehabilitation and keeping the offender away from society with punishment simply as a by product?

Kold · 07-10-2008 08:06PM

javaboy wrote: »

Great but that's not exactly what I asked. In the case of someone committing a crime where there is practically no chance of them reoffending, would you still be in favour of punishment?

Or is your motivation for supporting something like jail more about the potential rehabilitation and keeping the offender away from society with punishment simply as a by product?

The second one, yeah.

As for the crime where the person has no chance of reoffending, you'll have to give an example.

pirelli · 07-10-2008 08:33PM

Kold wrote: »

The second one, yeah.

As for the crime where the person has no chance of reoffending, you'll have to give an example.

Suicide bombing
or
Trespassing in electrical sub stations and climbing electric pylons.

Should prisoners be allowed to chose Death?

Comments