Never being allowed to express my views definitely hurts me.
If someone is too delicate to read a thread on suicide then they should not read a thread on suicide or its related topics.
Yes, there is some selfishness on all sides. Just as you can’t exist without something else dying to feed you, you can’t exist in society without your wants/needs/desires coming into conflict with someone else’s. The answer is not to say some people get their wants/needs/desires fulfilled but these other people have to go wanting.
Yes, actually living ethically is difficult. I hope this isn’t news to anyone.
While I have a different viewpoint than you in this thread (though I appreciate you sharing it and can understand where you’re coming from), this I definitely agree with. I feel like doctors are becoming more and more aware of this – I’m constantly asked by my PCP and my psychiatrist about sleep, and my doctor friends all stress the importance of sleep and its ability to help your body process and heal/repair. I never thought I had sleep problems, but my sleep has always been constantly interrupted (like every 1-2 hours.) Once I got my body to sleep with only waking up once in the middle of the night, my mental state and emotional regulation drastically improved. Proving one’s “toughness” by the ability to function on stretches of little sleep seems to me counterproductive to at least most people. Perhaps some truly function fine that way, but I’d wager most would function better with the suggested 7-9 hours per day.
This is a tough board to hold a minority opinion. I have done so before and felt jumped on by the responses, and that was on very non-personal issues. For whatever small amount its worth, even though I disagree with your position, I can certainly understand it and appreciate you sharing it. Everyone posting has had some very personal and hurtful experiences surrounding suicide, and unsurprisingly not everyone came to the same conclusions from their very different stories.
The funny thing is, having read through all the posts, I don’t think that your position would result in any actual differences in how you would treat someone in a suicidal place than the positions taken by everyone else posting. (I.e. it’s clear that just because you think the act is selfish, you wouldn’t be dismissive or hurtful to a person feeling that way.)
I don’t really see how being dead “evades responsibility”. They’re DEAD! They never get to do anything forever. There is no afterlife, and if there were, they’d be in hell, which is by no means
“evading responsibility”.
I’d question the bloodlust of people who demand “justice” as opposed to the killer suiciding. It sounds like Col Flagg, demanding a patient be healed so he can be executed.
Dead is dead - who cares how it happens? I don’t care if it is “selfish”. So’s murder.
I’ve already explained in the other thread how I think accountability works, and this isn’t it. The vast majority of people, criminal or otherwise, fail to take accountability for their actions. He’s hardly unique in that regard, but it doesn’t excuse him.
You (and some others) also appear to be arguing with a specific response I gave that has been ripped out of context - someone posted that at least the killer had done the honorable thing by killing themselves. I disputed that killing yourself after killing another person was an honorable act. This was not my language, it was someone else’s. Just curious, do you believe it was an honorable act?
But it is justice in my book. I believe when you’re dead, you’re dead. Doesn’t matter if it was suicide or ol’ sparky. You don’t get to partake of the world any more.
Although I feel that life in maximum security is worse than capital punishment, not everyone in prison agrees. However, if pressed, I’d want more killers to off themselves, not fewer.
The problem with being dead is that you don’t get to change. The possibility for redemption is gone. The possibility of doing something meaningful with your life is gone. Sure, it’s his right to decide, but I’m always going to be disappointed in people who refuse the opportunity. And while I think the current state of prisons is horrible (enough that I’m currently weighing my options for trying to help), I don’t think being a prisoner precludes having a meaningful or impactful life. Call me an idealist.
On many police/legal shows (such as Law and Order) when the police catch some multiple murder dead to rights, where there is no way the guy isn’t getting multiple lifer sentences, and he decides to suicide, the detectives usually convince him to surrender. Now what good does surrendering do you when you are a murdering cop facing life in prison? “Your family needs you”. To do what - serve as a bad example?
Now I understand where you are coming from. That’s a good reason. It doesn’t work for me, but I can appreciate it. But, even if they redeemed themselves, they’re not getting out of prison. (or at least they shouldn’t. ) They’ve forfeited their right forever to be a part of society. Since they don’t get to go to heaven, redemption really doesn’t change anything.
The original subject of the thread is murderer who strangled the life out of an innocent woman, and as noted, that takes minutes. You get time to think about what you are doing, to change your mind. Someone that went through with it doesn’t get to redeem themselves - they already had their chance.
Thank you for this thoughtful and vulnerable post.
I just wanted to comment on one bit:
I just wanted to fistbump solidarity on this, and also to reassure you that a lot – a LOT – of new mothers don’t enjoy having a (particularly first) newborn. I didn’t have nearly as hard a time as you, but the physical stresses of delivery and the lack of sleep and the hormones and the trouble with breastfeeding and this little person being dependent on me but really kind of a lump that just ate and slept, and I remember that first month being the hardest month of my life emotionally and physically up to that point, and I spent the entire time desperately unhappy. And talking to other mothers, I found that was the norm more often than not, especially with one’s first. (My second was much, much easier, and I actually enjoyed some newborn time with him – I think my body calmed down and figured out how to do it the second time, plus which I was more prepared for the lack of sleep and also had put in place more supports ahead of time for that.)
Your grief is real, and your experience was extreme – but I just wanted to reassure you that it’s also so very very common not to enjoy newborn time, especially one’s first. I wish that it were more common to talk about these things (which is part of why I’m talking about it now) and not to have the expectation that mothers will enjoy this part of life - I mean, some have an easy time! and that’s great! But a lot don’t, maybe even the majority. And before going through childbirth I thought that childbirth was the hard part and that it was normal to have a happy shiny postpartum experience that was all lovey and sweet. But no, I still remember it as a time where I was bleeding everywhere, crying all the time, my breasts were malfunctioning and horribly uncomfortable and dripping milk everywhere (omg, we literally got ants because of this, it was horrible), and the lack of sleep was messing terribly with me.
Thank you. I know it’s hard for a lot of people. My husband’s cousins are currently having babies by the truckload and they seem to be so joyful throughout the experience, it feels like there is not a lot of room for this other narrative. But this is also a family that sees childbearing as a religious duty of women and would be aghast that any woman might not actually like the experience all that much.
FWIW, being a parent is awesome. It was worth the inauspicious start. Starting around the 7 month mark, when that limp potato of a baby started becoming an actual person, my life exploded with joy. Having more children is something we closed the door on for numerous reasons, but to be able to do it once is like the highest honor of my life.
I was about to reply on reflex that most people with newborns are only showing the good right then. There’s a lot we don’t talk about. But you kind of answered the why of that right after. We are still not “allowed” to talk about how hard it is to birth a whole human and then, immediately, be responsible for their entire wellbeing.
I’m sure if you had asked me, I would have said I was so in love with my baby right then. I wouln’t have told you that I was so tired that I sometimes fell asleep standing up in the shower, or that it had been 3 days since I last showered, or that I was so anxious that someone was going to steal my baby that I couldn’t go to the store.
I certainly had the sleep deprivation. I remember sobbing while changing my son’s diaper. I mean, he pooped all over me while I was trying to do it, but still - not something that normally made me wail and cry like that.
I don’t think I have nearly enough bloodlust to agree with the logic that says that as long as the perpetrator dies, no other process serves any other objective.
It seems strange to me to only consider the process of trial and sentencing from the point of view of the perpetrator (i.e., he’d be dead either way, so what’s the difference). “Justice” for a crime is for everyone else in society except the person who did it, isn’t it? I don’t see how it’s a pro-bloodlust position to be against, say, vigilante mobs or a vendetta system in favor of criminal trials, and presumably those who are saying it would’ve been preferable for him not to kill himself are saying that because they wanted him to stand trial, just as they’d want him to do so rather than being shot by the cops.
I suppose it depends on how you view the purpose of the criminal justice system. I know that as it currently exists, it is inadequate to really offer a path to reform, but in my mind, I would prefer prison to be less about punishment and more about keeping the public safe while offering offenders the opportunity to make better life choices. Even in the insanity of the current prison system, there are prisoners who have chosen a better path that positively influences the community in some way. For this reason I think preserving life is, in general, a good idea.
And “justice,” indeed, is about some recompense to the victims just as much as it is about accountability for the perpetrator. If it were my loved one killed, I think I would have felt further robbed if the murderer killed himself instead of facing the music in court. A trial seems very much like a public statement that “this event happened and had real consequences” in a symbolic way, perhaps even a way that leads to closure.
That’s my view, too. And if not closure, then at least the opportunity to make a statement about what you’ve lost, and to have the person responsible for it have to sit there and listen to it. I think a lot about the Larry Nassar sentencing and all the women who faced him down to make their victim impact statements. I can’t really know, but I imagine having all the force of the state, for once, brought to bear to just give them the floor was something that was valuable to them, especially because of how obvious it was in that context that they were all much, much more powerful than him.
He will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison, but I think if he had killed himself before trial, that would have been a much less just outcome for those women, and I don’t think that has anything to do with bloodlust.
(On the other hand, I remember reading a study where people were asked what they thought the purpose of US criminal justice was: deterrence, punishment, rehabilitation, etc., and then they were given a series of pretty clever hypothetical scenarios where they got to decide what the most just sentence would be, in situations where for example the deterrent value would be minimal, or where rehabilitation was impossible, to see how their choices mapped to their stated philosophy. Pretty much across the board, for the majority of people, the philosophy that explained their choices best was retribution against the perpetrator, and not any utilitarian consideration. So maybe what the justice system is really supposed to do is say one thing and do another.)
I dunno, I went to an office baby shower recently (it was on-line, so “went”, I guess) and one of the expectant fathers asked experienced parents for advice and wisdom. I said, “it gets better”.
I found newborns difficult and unrewarding until they got to be a few months old and turned into little people. I love having kids. I enjoyed having teens, and school kids, and two year olds. But the demanding mass of reflexes that is a newborn? Not something I enjoyed.
Yeah, I also am active in a religious tradition where everyone seems to be really happy about babies and it’s a religious duty and the highest calling, etc. etc. which is part of what made it really hard for me because it just doesn’t leave much room for this narrative, as you say. The best thing someone at church said to me after I had a baby was, when she asked how I was doing and I hesitated, she said, “Yeah, for the first month or so I was wondering whether I could return the baby.” It was so validating to have someone from that community admit that it wasn’t all sunshine and unicorns, and that it was okay for me to think that too.
I’m glad you’re enjoying being a parent! I also think it’s the greatest thing ever. Someone close to me unfortunately had the experience both that postpartum was terrible (and really terrible in the sense that it triggered a serious auto-immune disease – one can make a case that she might well have come down with it sooner or later anyway, but still) and she doesn’t enjoy having kids all that much, which – well, now, that is something that’s taboo to talk about in our society. She loves her kids and is a good mom to them, she just wouldn’t do it again if she were able to live her life over (whereas I would absolutely do it all again in a hot instant), and it just seems so sad because for me it was worth it, and for her it wasn’t.
Seems easy enough to construct: Ted is a serial killer. Really heinous shit. While evading police, he had an accident, and was rendered physically incapacitated to such an extent that it is inconceivable that he could harm another human being ever again. You, as sentencing judge, have infinite discretion in this matter for some reason. What’s his sentence?
(Of course, in the real world, there’s nothing stopping someone from being motivated by more than one goal, so it’s not like it is in any way inconsistent to have some secondary reason to not want to let someone walk scot free. But as a thought exercise I think there is something to how quickly results that would seemingly be called for don’t feel right to a lot of people).