Ethics

[Sternwallow]

Kate wrote

Why, its me old Hobo code what kept me livin' back in the tough times. Thanks for the nostalgia. Did you also find, perhaps, the symbols for "will call coppers" or "mean dog here"? The symbol I saw only once and had to wait more than a month before I found someone to explain it to me was shaped like a tin cup and meant "needs a handout worse than you do".

[Sternwallow]

Choobus wrote

If you cannot polish a turd why is francis so shiny?

He lives in is an oil slick.

[Sternwallow]

Isilmë wrote

but it is immoral for the state to carry out an 'assisted suicide' for someone who clearly needs help.

Choosing death does not automatically qualify as a need for any help. Even if it was, the kind of help must also be the individual's choice.

The right to choose death does not require a "good" reason and it does not imply mental or emotional illness (nor even distress).

[Sternwallow]

Isilmë wrote

but it is immoral for the state to carry out an 'assisted suicide' for someone who clearly needs help.

It is immoral for the state to impose "help" on a person against their wishes, based on its judgment on how "clearly" that help is needed. The Gulags were filled with people judged to be in need of psychiatric help for having sentiments contrary to state policy (dogma).

[ILOVEJESUS]

its irresponsible of the state to spend large amounts of money on small amounts of people.

[Sternwallow]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

its irresponsible of the state to spend large amounts of money on small amounts of people.

It's "numbers of people" unless you are talking about how fat they are, silly.

[psychodiva]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

my main area of work was at falconer school for boys. 11-16 all offenders unable to get mainstream eductation. also did work for herts county souncil in francis coomb schools millstream project, a lot of those kids ( up to 18) had suffered various levels of abuse as well as your out and out delinquents. i also worked alongside the council in hertforshire with the parents of a lot of the kids i worked with, many were ex prisoners or offenders. what i learnt from those who worked alongside me was very very interesting and did away with any liberal thinking that i posessed, and that was a lot. you cannot polish a turd so dont go on about rehabilitation anyone that doesnt want to come accross too naive. a lot of these people are just made that way for whatever reason and cost society so much ( sometimes in life as well as money). we should all work towards perfecting our forensic technology and then spend less time making excuses to not do what is so plainly obvious to those who wish to dammage our fragile society so badly.

so- no real prisons, no Broadmoor, Ashworth, Huntercombe? minor criminals

Sternwallow wrote

Choosing death does not automatically qualify as a need for any help. Even if it was, the kind of help must also be the individual's choice.

The right to choose death does not require a "good" reason and it does not imply mental or emotional illness (nor even distress).

who gets to judge whether the suicidal guy is in his right mind when he wants to die? maybe you think stable, mentally healthy people choose to commit suicide. but i think anyone who wants to commit suidide is not mentally healthy, they are clearly in some emotional distress.
i think the argument is utterly absurd. i don't believe in capital punishment and i certainly don't believe in the state helping people commit suicide.

[Sternwallow]

Isilmë wrote

who gets to judge whether the suicidal guy is in his right mind when he wants to die? maybe you think stable, mentally healthy people choose to commit suicide. but i think anyone who wants to commit suidide is not mentally healthy, they are clearly in some emotional distress.
i think the argument is utterly absurd. i don't believe in capital punishment and i certainly don't believe in the state helping people commit suicide.

I haven't found any support for your position that a would-be suicide must be in distress or have a mental illness.

It is not at all clear who besides the individual has any right, duty, responsibility, authority or adequate qualifications to judge (and refuse) his desire for self determination.

A person of my acquaintance is in the enviable position of being beholden to no-one and responsible for none. There is no-one responsible for her, no spouse or other family. She is apparently quite happy, well adjusted and optimistic. If she decided tomorrow that she had seen as much of life as she cared to and arranged for an overdose of sleeping pills, I don't think anyone should be able to intervene. She is not owned by the community or the state.

[Choobus]

I agree with you stern. However, as in the case of the death penalty, any state sanctioned system would be subject to abuse and in this matter that cannot be tolerated since you cannot weigh the good against the bad. Thus, in my opinion, debates about whether it is right or wrong to execute people or provide assistance for suicide are moot because we humans can't be trusted to get it right.

[Sternwallow]

Choobus wrote

I agree with you stern. However, as in the case of the death penalty, any state sanctioned system would be subject to abuse and in this matter that cannot be tolerated since you cannot weigh the good against the bad. Thus, in my opinion, debates about whether it is right or wrong to execute people or provide assistance for suicide are moot because we humans can't be trusted to get it right.

I agree with you in general. We can't reliably decide if someone should or should not die. However, I suggest that the individual must be able to make the decision for himself whether society thinks it is right or wrong.

[Choobus]

Absolutely, and if one decides to commit suicide there's not much that can be done to stop it unless you are foolish enough to tell everyone beforehand.

Isilmë wrote

surely they would be classed as suicidal?
criminals don't get to choose their punishment.
if they want to die, they should receive counseling.

What I was thinking, Isilme, was of a thrice-convicted pedophile. His first two stints in prison have been just awful--pedophiles get raped a lot in prisons, beaten, treated like dirt by prisoners and guards alike. So let's say this last sentence will take him to the end of his natural life...and he really does feel awful about being a pedophile anyway. Why not let him opt out of continued misery? I see that as a rational preference over another 20 years of getting raped on concrete prison floors and spat on by guards.

I really like your comment "Criminals don't get to choose their punishment" because it's provocative and interesting to me (Actually in a couple states here in the US, they have an option of either method A of execution or Method B, prisoner's choice. (http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/states.using.txt) The famous dead guy Gary Gillmore--Norman Mailer wrote a book about the case--opted to get shot by a firing squad in Utah, which personally does not appeal to me at all. Also, in some states, convicted pedophiles can opt into "chemical castration," the application of large doses of hormones that kill their sexual desire. I forget what opting for that does--shortens their jailtime? http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...ion/index.html)

But why don't we let prisoners have a say in their punishment? Let's say we have four possible and theoretically equivalent sentences for some crime...why not let the prisoner pick the one s/he finds most palatable? I can't think of a good reason why not.

[Sternwallow]

oldhippychick wrote

What I was thinking, Isilme, was of a thrice-convicted pedophile. His first two stints in prison have been just awful--pedophiles get raped a lot in prisons, beaten, treated like dirt by prisoners and guards alike. So let's say this last sentence will take him to the end of his natural life...and he really does feel awful about being a pedophile anyway. Why not let him opt out of continued misery? I see that as a rational preference over another 20 years of getting raped on concrete prison floors and spat on by guards.

I really like your comment "Criminals don't get to choose their punishment" because it's provocative and interesting to me (Actually in a couple states here in the US, they have an option of either method A of execution or Method B, prisoner's choice. (http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/states.using.txt) The famous dead guy Gary Gillmore--Norman Mailer wrote a book about the case--opted to get shot by a firing squad in Utah, which personally does not appeal to me at all. Also, in some states, convicted pedophiles can opt into "chemical castration," the application of large doses of hormones that kill their sexual desire. I forget what opting for that does--shortens their jailtime? http://archive.salon.com/health/feat...ion/index.html)

But why don't we let prisoners have a say in their punishment? Let's say we have four possible and theoretically equivalent sentences for some crime...why not let the prisoner pick the one s/he finds most palatable? I can't think of a good reason why not.

Our current society demands vengeance as part of punishment. So, if a felon decided he wanted to die, it would not be seen as punishment precisely because he chose it and presumably preferred it, possibly even would like it, and so the vengeance would not be satisfied.

[ILOVEJESUS]

your right stern with the wording i is sorry. why spend vast amounts keeping alive and imprisoned the few? would we get it wrong choobus????? i dont see why we couldnt actually iron out the pitfalls and put in place something that will not send an innocent to death... very unlikely now in a murder case anyway... and also allow not just criminals but those terminally ill who wish to die to have their wish and end their suffering.