Belgian serial rapist/muderer refused request to be euthanised...
 

..or the decision to allow it has been reversed....interesting though and different from capital punishment...if a long term serving prisoner feels themselves that they will never be well..(mentally..)/be able to be part of society ever again...do you think that euthanasia should be considered...because if they're mentally unwell then how could a request like that ever be considered/it wouldn't be in sound mind.../thoughts..?...

..oh and worrying that he was being considered for early parole and he refused it....







A serial rapist and murderer who had won the right to die under Belgium's controversial euthanasia laws will not now be put to death following fresh medical advice, authorities said Tuesday.

Frank Van Den Bleeken, who has spent 26 years in jail for repeated rapes and a rape-murder, will instead be moved from his prison in the northwestern city of Bruges to a new psychiatric treatment centre in Ghent, Justice Minister Koen Geens said.

The Flemish-language newspaper De Morgen reported Saturday that Van Den Bleeken would be voluntarily euthanized by lethal injection in Bruges prison on January 11.

The report sparked complaints from human rights activists that Belgium was flouting its own euthanasia laws by failing to provide proper treatment for such cases.

Geens said in a statement he "takes note of the decision of doctors treating Mr Frank Van Den Bleeken to no longer continue the euthanasia procedure."

He gave no reason for the decision, citing medical privacy.

The rapist and murderer had for years requested that the state help him end his life due to what his lawyer Jos Vander Velpen called "unbearable" psychological suffering because he was unable to check his violent sexual impulses.

His wish was granted by doctors in September.

Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002, the second country in the world to do so after The Netherlands, and logged a record 1,807 cases of euthanasia in 2013.

Its strict conditions for a mercy killing include that patients must be capable, conscious and have presented a "voluntary, considered and repeated" request to die.

- 'Give me euthanasia' -

Lawyer Vander Velpen said last year the sex offender met all legal conditions, and for the last few years had felt he "couldn't stand to live like this any longer and could no longer accept the pain".

"I am a human being, and regardless of what I've done, I remain a human being. So, yes, give me euthanasia," Van Den Bleeken said at the time in comments on VRT Flemish Belgian television.

Van Den Bleeken, considering himself a menace to society, had refused to be considered for early parole, but found the conditions of his detention inhumane.

He had requested a transfer to a specialised psychiatric centre in The Netherlands for treatment or, failing that, a mercy killing.

Belgian authorities at the time denied the transfer request and senior officials said Van Den Bleeken also refused the option of being moved to the new facility that opened in Ghent in November.

But Geens, who took office with a new government in October, said the prisoner would now be transferred to the centre in Ghent where he would undergo observation about the long-term treatment he needs.

He added that Belgian authorities had also undertaken "very recent and intense contacts" with their Dutch counterparts that "offer a very clear prospect for a rapid transfer to a centre in the Netherlands specialised in long stays."

The minister said that since assuming office he has made contacts to develop over the next six months new possibilities for treatment of long-term prisoners suffering from "deep psychological problems."

He observed that there was a lack of such care in Belgium and that the country had been condemned for it by the European Court of Human Rights.

In February last year, Belgium became the first country to allow euthanasia for terminally ill children of all ages, after a heated debate in which critics questioned a child's ability to make the decision to die.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...s-planned.html

This is a good issue Ammi, and is linked to certain of my controversial views on terrorists, in that here we have a man whose atrocious acts of evil justifies him being classified as a ‘monster’.

However, unlike some criminal ‘monsters’, Van Den Bleeken clearly possesses a sense of moral ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but by his own admission is unable to resist his deep rooted psychological compulsion to commit the violent rape murders he is incarcerated for.

This is so very important.

A) Someone who makes a conscious choice to commit a crime acts through ‘free will’ and in spite of his own internal voice of morality which counsels against such an action.
B) Someone who commits a crime through psychological compulsion is not acting through ‘free will’ and has no ‘choice’ in the matter.

Category A) can be helped. Category B) cannot.

Van Den Bleeken knows himself better than any Psychiatrist, Psychologist or Criminologist, and when he tells us that he is beyond salvation, beyond ‘repair’, beyond ‘fixing’, then we should listen to him.

I have a feeling that because Van Den Bleeken has refused parole and freely confesses that he cannot fight his evil compulsion and so will forever remain a danger to society if freed, then he has spent years living with remorse for his crimes, but the futility of knowing, that despite his shame and guilt he will carry on committing those crimes, is behind his request.

He should be allowed to have his life ended by euthanasia if that is what he wants and the only reason not to allow it, is if his reason for wanting it, is that he simply cannot endure being imprisoned and wants an easy way out of his punishment. The fact that he has elected not to be considered for early release via parole, however, would seem to preclude this.

Western society hypocritically continues to maintain that ‘imprisonment’ of offenders is both to ‘rehabilitate’ and ‘punish’, yet modern penal institutions do neither; modern prisons are little more than ‘holiday camps’ and apart from the ‘deprivation of total liberty’ element, any ‘punishment’ aspect is nonsensical.

Does a modern prison with its sports facilities, library facilities, warm, centrally heated, comfortably equipped cells, TV’s, Laptops, phones, and four square meals a day, truly ‘punish’ the average repeat offender drug addict whose ‘civilian’ life consists of living in squalid bedsits in flop houses, existing on an ‘if and when’ diet of rubbish food?

As to the ‘Rehabilitation’ element, true rehabilitation is effected from within by the prisoner himself, rather than any external programs or devices. Whether it is an aversion to prison itself, guilt and shame driven realisation of how wrong his crime was, or some other reason, it is invariably only when a prisoner himself determines never to reoffend that he will not do so.

Van Den Bleeken is beyond any hope of ‘rehabilitation’ and after already spending 26 years in prison and refusing to be even considered for parole, is beyond any ‘punishment’ value that incarceration might hold, and the state should allow him his request.

For the state to refuse his request, then they are truly committing him to prison for life and punishing him for the wrong reasons - vengeance and control.

I feel his claim for euthanasia shouldn't come before the period of justice for his victims is served, and if that is a whole life sentence then so be it.

....hmmm, the thing is though Kirk..if his mental health is such that he can never be in society again then he's not mentally capable of requesting euthanasia...I mean it wouldn't be granted to someone 'not of sound mind..' who wasn't a convicted rapist/murderer...

Why? What are the reasons for your stance?

It wasn't that wordy come on... my reasoning is he must serve his sentence first.

But why must he, if the alternative sentence he requests is more severe than the sentence he has been given? Surely being put to death is far more a severe sentence than life imprisonment?

Add to this the immense savings to the state in the costs of keeping him in prison for life, and the fact that he may well change his mind in the future and seek and actually be granted parole - knowing that he tried to warn the authorities that he 'could not resist the compulsion to rape and kill', and there is absolutely no logical reason not to rant his wish.

Has he been diagnosed totally Clinically Insane' Ammi? People who suffer from the most serious 'Obsessive-Compulsion Disorders' are generally still deemed capable of cognitive thought because different parts of the brain are responsible, and for him to have decreed that he cannot fight his compulsion and that he will offend again, and for him to refuse any consideration for parole to ensure that this does not happen, then I would say that he is certainly of 'sound mind' and capable of rational thought.

Whether the state agrees or not is another matter, but if the don't it does not mean that they are right. More often than not it is psychologists and psychiatrists who need a 'mind doctor'.

Good post... But I can't help thinking if he doesn't want to continue living then just take your own life and that way everyone's a winner.

Nobody else will ever suffer at his hands
He doesn't have to continue to be incarcerated for the rest of his life
The state doesn't have to get someone else to put him down.

Simples...!!!

True Nedusa, but maybe he is under so close an observation that he hasn't access to the means of killing himself, or the opportunity to do so without being seen and intercepted.

I just think - like with a lot of other serial killers, child murders and terrorists - he's better off dead and so are we.

No.Let him ruddy suffer. Its not meant to be a holiday camp.
Did he ask his rape victims if they would rather not be raped?
The original sentence was set out to fit the crimes of rape and rape/murder. He should have no choice in the matter.

Good point, yes he might consider death the easier option or sentence.






.

That's just my point though Smudgie - modern prisons are holiday camps, and he was given his original sentence rather than being executed (which he deserved) because Belgium abolished Capital Punshment 20 years ago. In addition, probably recognising that the abolition of Capital Punishment was a mistake, that country has an established and growing practice of Euthanasia.

I'm not advocating allowing his request because I have any sympathy with him, I am saying that taking into account all the pros and cons, let him die.

The fact that he's refused to even be considered for parole would seem to preclude that possibility Nedusa, but what if in 5 years time he thinks; "Right, feck 'em, they won't put me to death" and starts playing the "I've seen the error of my ways, I will sin no more" role, then puts in for parole and says;"I'm remorseful and reformed, and I have already served 35 years" and they set him free only for him to rape and kill another 20 innocent women before he is caught again?

What then? - Top him I say, and we'll say "good riddance".

I can totally see your point Kirk.
I am not against the death penalty either. Provided it is beyond any doubt that the person is guity snd that it is carried out humanely
However, iin this case I would not consider giving him what he considers the easy option.

No prob Smudgie, but I'd top him in a heartbeat. :grin2:

Well that's entirely subjective... Maybe the cowards way out is a more attractive prospect than a lifetime of torment based on your murderous past?
Maybe the victims families too would rather he have the chance to reflect, and not have the choice to end his sentence.

You could apply that fuzzy logic to many criminally insane though, he will be controlled with medication. The 'savings to the state' really has no place in an ethical debate either, being purely an economic consideration.

If he has turned down the chance to be considered for early parole though - he is obviously not on a whole life tariff and could eventually be released so surely euthanizing him will stop the threat of him repeat offending?

Agree



Agree
Do not agree, there are far worse things than death, its a bit of a get out of jail card if you will pardon the pun

and if we are going down the economic route then surely we should be killing off all lifers. Why stop with this one.


Agree

Have you been in a maximum security prison lately Kirk, I don't believe they are quite the holiday camps some media would have you believe.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Thank you. Exactly one of the points I was trying to make Annie.

"Do not agree, there are far worse things than death, its a bit of a get out of jail card if you will pardon the pun"


I disagree Cherie. When my time comes if an Angel appeared and said I could die or instead live another 30 years doing a 'life sentence' behind bars, I know which I would choose - and I'm truly not afraid of death.

'Life' allows me to think, read books, exercise, write, masturbate or have gay sex, eat, drink -- well, live. Death is -- well, not living. :hehe:

"and if we are going down the economic route then surely we should be killing off all lifers. Why stop with this one."

I Agree, why stop indeed, but not all lifers, just serial killers, child killers, cop killers, and terrorists. I'm all for it.

"Have you been in a maximum security prison lately Kirk, I don't believe they are quite the holiday camps some media would have you believe"

No Cherie, not for a while, but I have two prison officer friends and my brother recently retired from the Prison Service after serving for years in a max security prison, so I am 'reasonably informed', and anyway, as I have outlined above, 'Life' is still living, death is not.

Sorry you disagree but that's life (no pun intended):joker:

If he met all the legal criteria for Euthanasia then he shouldn't be refused it unless it's stated in the law that there are exceptions for prisoners. It seems a bit wishy washy and dangerous for the legal system not to stick to it's guns on this issue one way or another.

Euthanasia for prisoners serving life sentences - no. they should have to continue their sentence, they do not deserve an easy way out.

Euthanasia for terminally ill patients - yes. they should not be made to suffer.

...if it's legal and his mental illness is incurable and he is suffering/would that be any less than physical suffering/a physical terminal illness..?..

..I'm just playing devil's advocate Josh but he did get what he requested though which was to be transferred to a clinic where he would be helped or if not then to be euthanised ..and he's being transferred to the clinic which he was previously refused....

I agree.Euthanasia is the easy way out for this animal.He should serve his full sentence.He needs to be punished not have his wishes granted.