The right to take his own life?

If all society is due is a jail term that ends in the prisoner's death, then the manner of that prisoner's death shouldn't matter at all.

I can't make sense of this sentence. Please explain.

Nor would I agree that if incarceration was tantamount to a quick dealt death sentence as I discussed prior.

………the penal system's inmate's living conditions and thus health.

You wrote

joefromchicago wrote:

If all society is due is a jail term that ends in the prisoner's death, then the manner of that prisoner's death shouldn't matter at all.

Taken as written your sweeping generalization does not preclude capital punishment after incarceration has begun.

There are/were some prisons, in some countries, in some time periods, in which going to prison could likely be the equivalent of a death sentence due to poor treatment and/or torture leading to an untimely death.

Chumly wrote:

You wrote

joefromchicago wrote:

If all society is due is a jail term that ends in the prisoner's death, then the manner of that prisoner's death shouldn't matter at all.

Taken as written your sweeping generalization does not preclude capital punishment after incarceration has begun.

Of course it precludes capital punishment. That I did not specifically exclude execution doesn't mean that I considered it a possibility. In a discussion about life sentences, the death sentence is simply not an option. There is, therefore, no need to exclude it, since it is excluded by the terms of the discussion, and anyone paying attention would have recognized that. If you can't keep up with the tempo of this thread, you might want to consider sitting this one out.

There are/were some prisons, in some countries, in some time periods, in which going to prison could likely be the equivalent of a death sentence due to poor treatment and/or torture leading to an untimely death.

I wasn't aware that the Australian penal system was so barbaric.

Chumly kicks ass!

You made the claim that "the manner of that prisoner's death shouldn't matter at all" and now you're simply trying to dodge the fact that your sweeping generalization is in error of your intent. Too bad for you, if you can't keep up with the scope of this thread, you might want to consider sitting this one out.

That you go on to say "In a discussion about life sentences, the death sentence is simply not an option" is another load of backpedaling, laws can and do change and/or the convict may commit a crime once incarcerated that embraces the death penalty.

I wasn't aware that you were the Thread Police. And in that tempestuous tempest in a teapot role, you preside over your artifice of a kingdom of myopic relevance; now where did you put your clothes oh great emperor joefromchicago?

As you seem to have forgotten the title of this thread it is "The right to take his own life?" not joefromchicago's version of what he deems relevant to his understanding of the implications of life sentencing within the context of the Australian penal system.

Chumly kicks ass!

I wasn't aware that the Australian penal system was so barbaric.

Of course, it is very likely that Joe's remark concerns itself only with the nation of Australia, after it became a dominion (1901? That's close if not exactly accurate).

Dr Philip Nitschke is a leading Australian "right to die" advocate. He argues Bryant's ongoing incarceration amounts to "torture" & given that he will never be released, he should have the right to kill himself, if this is what he wants.

And for that I will bake some of my famous Alice B. Toklas brownies for you.

msolga wrote:

Dr Philip Nitschke is a leading Australian "right to die" advocate. He argues Bryant's ongoing incarceration amounts to "torture" & given that he will never be released, he should have the right to kill himself, if this is what he wants.

Of course it is torture. That's what prison is for: torturing people. Don't make the mistake of thinking that prison is about rehabilitation or making the streets safe. If it was about making the streets safe, we would not have such a thing as "life imprisonment"...instead, we push the bounds of morality my forcing people to survive a life of torture, even though it costs us a pretty penny to do it. That is the price of revenge. And it's certainly not about rehabilitation. That would be way too much work. No, it is about fear and torture and revenge.

As far as the right to die goes, it should be an inalienable right of all free people. That physician-assisted suicide is illegal in most states is a disgrace to our nation.

stuh505 wrote:

msolga wrote:

Dr Philip Nitschke is a leading Australian "right to die" advocate. He argues Bryant's ongoing incarceration amounts to "torture" & given that he will never be released, he should have the right to kill himself, if this is what he wants.

Of course it is torture. That's what prison is for: torturing people. Don't make the mistake of thinking that prison is about rehabilitation or making the streets safe. If it was about making the streets safe, we would not have such a thing as "life imprisonment"...instead, we push the bounds of morality my forcing people to survive a life of torture, even though it costs us a pretty penny to do it. That is the price of revenge. And it's certainly not about rehabilitation. That would be way too much work. No, it is about fear and torture and revenge.

As far as the right to die goes, it should be an inalienable right of all free people. That physician-assisted suicide is illegal in most states is a disgrace to our nation.

Quote:

That's right.

And this man is not free.

Thus, he no longer gets to pick and choose whether he wants to die or not with assistance.

He gave up that right when he slaughtered those people.

If he wanted to commit suicide,
he shud have done it BEFORE
he killed those other people.

Quote:

If he were to die, it would be over.

Well,
THAT applies to free and innocent people too.

msolga wrote:

Dr Philip Nitschke is a leading Australian "right to die" advocate. He argues Bryant's ongoing incarceration amounts to "torture" & given that he will never be released, he should have the right to kill himself, if this is what he wants.

Of course it is torture. That's what prison is for: torturing people. Don't make the mistake of thinking that prison is about rehabilitation or making the streets safe. If it was about making the streets safe, we would not have such a thing as "life imprisonment"...instead, we push the bounds of morality my forcing people to survive a life of torture, even though it costs us a pretty penny to do it. That is the price of revenge. And it's certainly not about rehabilitation. That would be way too much work. No, it is about fear and torture and revenge.

As far as the right to die goes, it should be an inalienable right of all free people.
That physician-assisted suicide is illegal in most states is a disgrace to our nation.