mushypancakes
Yes, it's understood that Martin Bryant is "intellectually challenged", but my understanding from the trial is that he was also aware of what he was doing when her murdered all those people.
I believe that an individual should have the right to end their own life, assuming that person is in control of there facilities & in a position to make a "reasoned" decision. The problem for me is that I strongly oppose capital punishment, under any circumstances. Also capital punishment is no longer practiced under Australian law. It appears that Bryant's previous attempts to end to his life have been thwarted by the prison authorities. They would be considered negligent if he died while incarcerated in their care. They do not have the choice to turn a blind eye to his attempts to harm or kill himself. So it could almost be argued that Dr Nitschke is arguing for a state sanctioned mercy killing to relieve Martin Bryant of his pain and misery. That's the dilemma for me. I can fully understand him wanting to put an end to his seemingly endless "torture" by dying, but can't condone a state sanctioned & supported death.
msolga wrote:mushypancakes
Yes, it's understood that Martin Bryant is "intellectually challenged", but my understanding from the trial is that he was also aware of what he was doing when her murdered all those people.
That was my understanding as well.
Quote:
I believe that an individual should have the right to end their own life, assuming that person is in control of there facilities & in a position to make a "reasoned" decision.
Quote:
How about Bryant? His repeated suicide attempts don't exactly lend to someone who is reasoning well. Each time he fails, probably suffers pain, and yet tries again. That's not reasonable. It's not intelligent.
Are the officials required to guard this man against his own stupidity as well?
One possible solution is to release the prison authorities of accusations of negligence IF this man were to be successful in an attempt, at this point.
He has shown him self to be extremely high risk. He is in prison - is he in the psychiatric ward? Under care for a mental disorder? In a place with those specifically qualified to deal with and understand his level of ability to reason?
My understanding is that he is not. Which means, he has been said to have his faculties about him and is simply choosing to attempt to harm/kill himself.
That choice inside of a person really can not be taken away. However, I think it would be ridiculous to assist him in that.
What if he is not tortured - just dumb?
No, seriously.
Not being too smart, you can think having to go to bed early is 'torture'. Really believe it's worth dying for too!
They can just stop trying to force him to stay alive. They can take the responsibility of what I think is an unreasonable level of care for this man and place some of it where it belongs: on Bryant.
He's either impared too much to be accountable for a decision of this sort, or he's not. Which one?
So if he is successful within the prison system as it is, with the same levels of precautions in place, only he lays with his death.
It's one idea. If he is indeed capable of making such a decision on his own.
I find his intellectual ability quite an interesting factor, because, he was put into a facility that does not specifically take that into account.
They didn't put him in an institution but a prison.
It is very weird. I stand by that I think it is a case where people just don't know what to do with him. He's beyond what we know how to provide for.
mushypancakes wrote:One possible solution is to release the prison authorities of accusations of negligence IF this man were to be successful in an attempt, at this point.
He has shown him self to be extremely high risk. He is in prison - is he in the psychiatric ward? Under care for a mental disorder? In a place with those specifically qualified to deal with and understand his level of ability to reason?
My understanding is that he is not. Which means, he has been said to have his faculties about him and is simply choosing to attempt to harm/kill himself.
I doubt that the prison authorities
could be released of such responsibilities under the law. However I'm not a legal expert.
As for the actual details of precisely what sort of treatment he is receiving for his "disorder" while in prison: I don't think most of us are in a position to know that simply from the media reports. I seem to recall reports, some time back, about psychiatric treatment, but but am unclear about the details.
OmSigDAVID wrote:2. Since u addressed me on the subject of allegedly shouting,
reciprocally, I will take the liberty
of pointing out that u speak of "an individual "
and then use the adjectival pronoun " their " the possessive form of THEY,
referring to a multiplicity of people.
This is a contradiction in terms.
I agree. Terrible mistakes. I should take more time when posting.
Omsig:
Quote:NOT shouting,
just making it easier to read
and to elevate some concepts above others, for emfasis
Your dismissal of all the people who have complained to you about your use of fonts and colors is childish.
It's exactly as if you were a little old eccentric who lives in the middle of a community who paints his house with bright orange paint, has spotlights on garish sculptures and plants, and flies psychedelic flags. He might think he was just "expressing himself" too - but it would be a conscious act of unhospitality on the little man's part, just as your garish style is here.
Ok. MsOlga has a fine thread here. I for one would like to see it continue.
People on A2K are used to a little side jostling here and there... they'll get back to the subject matter anon.
...and ain't you a lil' new to be policin' already?
C'mon, Snood. [S]he's just expressing an opinion. Everyone can do that.
snood wrote:People on A2K are used to a little side jostling here and there... they'll get back to the subject matter anon.
...and ain't you a lil' new to be policin' already?
Snood, you KNOW me. Kinda.
It's 'Flushd' under a different name eh. Thought you saw that under my thread.
Anyhow, it doesn't matter.
Gee, that last comment sounds familiar. Think it was my boyfriend and the first time in bed
I just didn't want to have to go through all that bold lettering, to tell the truth.
It seems strange and odd to me
that my fellow human beings object to BOLD LETTERING,
in that it is easier to see and to read.
If lettering is too small,
then it strains your eyes to SEE it.
By what reasoning do people dislike bold lettering ??
This perplexes me; I just don 't understand it.
David
It's perplexing to me that you don't understand why people find your constant bolds and colors irritating.
snood wrote:It's perplexing to me that you don't understand why people find your constant bolds and colors irritating.
I, for one, find OmSigDAVID's posts irritating, no matter what font size or color he opts for. It's why I seldom respond to him. But, that's just me, Snood.
Flushd! You're mushypancakes!
mushypancakes wrote:How about Bryant? His repeated suicide attempts don't exactly lend to someone who is reasoning well. Each time he fails, probably suffers pain, and yet tries again. That's not reasonable. It's not intelligent.
That's a classic "catch-22." If he doesn't attempt to commit suicide, then he's clearly sane enough to have the right to commit suicide. On the other hand, if he actually attempts to commit suicide, then he isn't sane enough to have the right to commit suicide.
As much and omgsigdavid have both pointed out, taking ones life implies not having ownership of it to begin with. The assumption is that an incarcerated man does not own his life -- the government, and society, does. My comments were directed towards free people -- thus, what I said earlier does not apply to an incarcerated man. That is a whole different story..
Personally, I am a vengeful person. I admit that...and if someone did me wrong, I would want to see them suffer. But I do not believe it is right for the government to be vengeful. It's purpose is merely to serve and protect, not to become the long-strong-arm of every pissed off citizen with a personal vendetta.
Therefore, in an ideal system, the reaction of the law would be conditional on only 2 things:
1) the likelihood of a person committing an act that is dangerous to others
2) the severity of an offense
(The only reason that the severity of an offense should be considered is for intimidation purposes for would-be-criminals, and because of the correlation to future likelihood of re-committing the act.)
Mental capacity should have absolutely no effect on the law's reaction beyond the likelihood that it has to a person recommitting a dangerous act. If the law is less strict on mentally disabled people, then it becomes a long-arm of personal vendettas -- it is basically saying, we don't hate this person as much because he didn't know what he was doing.
But the law should not consider hatred at all. It should only consider the safety of the people. Whether or not a person understood what they were doing is independent of how dangerous what they did was. Moreover, a person who does not understand what they did cannot be trusted to not do it again. Therefore, a person lacking the mental capacity to discriminate between what we as a society have considered "right" and "wrong" is one of the most dangerous individuals, and should be terminated.
If the intention is to not ever release the offender, then as I have already pointed out, the only reason not to terminate the offender is to torture them and take pleasure in their suffering by dragging out their miserable confined life as long as possible. The only humane thing to do with a person you don't intend to release is to kill them.
On this note, however, let me point out that the electric chair is also not a humane method. It is a brutal instrument of torture, which I do not condone for the same reasons as I have already explained.
These are my beliefs and I stand by them regardless of the person in question -- be it myself, my mother, my offspring, my president, or my local gangbanger.
