[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

Agree

Originally Posted by Ammi

....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...

Agree

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

Originally Posted by smudgie

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.

Agree

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Cherie

.

"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.

"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)

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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.

1) Your comments are redundant because I have already covered the points you are making. I always state my case as fully as I can and always expound just why I state what I do, no matter how long such a practice may take me because I believe that serious issues cannot be discussed in a few short comments.

This being so, I have explained my reasons in full why I think he should be allowed to die, and just why I do not believe he is seeking a 'cowards way out'. Read my posts and you'll see.

2) You really should read through your own posts before critising me for 'fuzzy logic".

3) This is not a thread confined specifically to 'ethics'. No one specified so in the original post, and I used the economic factor as just one small part of my case.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

1) Your comments are redundant because I have already covered the points you are making. I always state my case as fully as I can and always expound just why I state what I do, no matter how long such a practice may take me because I believe that serious issues cannot be discussed in a few short comments.

This being so, I have explained my reasons in full why I think he should be allowed to die, and just why I do not believe he is seeking a 'cowards way out'. Read my posts and you'll see.

2) You really should read through your own posts before critising me for 'fuzzy logic".

3) This is not a thread confined specifically to 'ethics'. No one specified so in the original post, and I used the economic factor as just one small part of my case.

Hey... let's get this clear I don't care what you consider redundant.

I had my say on the topic and that's it if you don't like it or don't agree I'm not interested.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Hey... let's get this clear I don't care what you consider redundant.

I had my say on the topic and that's it if you don't like it or don't agree I'm not interested.

Let's get it straight; you didn't have your say on the topic at all - you had another pop at my say, because it is me who is saying it.

It's the author you have the real issue with not what he has written, but as usual with people who are driven to criticise through personal agendas rather than genuine opposition to what is being stated in the post they are purporting to criticise, you have nothing valid to say, because you either don't read what you're criticising, or read it but don't understand.

You purport to respond to my post because you disagree with it, but when I respond to your response for the same reason, you 'cop out' by stating you're 'not interested.

LMFAO.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Let's get it straight; you didn't have your say on the topic at all - you had another pop at my say, because it is me who is saying it.

It's the author you have the real issue with not what he has written, but as usual with people who are driven to criticise through personal agendas rather than genuine opposition to what is being stated in the post they are purporting to criticise, you have nothing valid to say, because you either don't read what you're criticising, or read it but don't understand.

You purport to respond to my post because you disagree with it, but when I respond to your response for the same reason, you 'cop out' by stating you're 'not interested.

LMFAO.

You seem you be taking my stance on this personally... I have no idea why.
I don't have anything against you, I disagree on this is all.
If you don't think I've anything valid to say that's fine, just don't respond to my posts then