Well, I can see one problem with that right off the bat: why create a repressive atmosphere and lock down the regime just because there’s a suicide? Someone was in a horrible environment, locked away from society, and he couldn’t take it anymore so he killed himself. Move on.
Indeed. I would make that right available to everyone, not just prisoners.
The difference between forcing “health” on your children and forcing it on prisoners is that children are considered incapable of looking after themselves. A child, legally speaking, has no idea what he wants, and if he says he wants to die, well, that’s just the demons in his head screaming because they haven’t been let out yet (which suddenly happens on his 18th birthday, of course).
Adult prisoners, OTOH, do know what they want. If they want to refuse medical treatment, or even food and water, they should be able to do that. If they want to inflict harm on themselves, they should be able to do that, even if they go as far as killing themselves. I believe choosing whether or not to look after one’s health is a fundamental human right, not some privilege that the government can grant or deny at its discretion.
I believe this as well… I just don’t know how much attention to give it. Most people can be convinced to change their minds about anything, given enough time and effort. “Re-education” in dictatorships is one extreme example. But why should a person’s potential future desires–the ones he may have after he’s been persuaded, counseled, or medicated–be given more weight than his actual desires right now?
Yes, emotions play a role. And often people’s sentences too often reflect the prevailing public opinion at the time (a la truth in sentencing) which can keep the punishment from fitting the crime. But as I said, in theory, life sentences are imposed to protect the public.
Well, that’s the thing. If the criminal justice system worked the way it should, there probably wouldn’t be three-strikes-your-out lifers rotting in cells for selling weed. Perhaps some noble lawmaker aeons ago had some high-minded ideas about “corrections”, but I see little evidence much correcting is going on, given the recidivism of violent offenders. Nor do I see much justice being done with, say, the aforementioned manditory sentences for non-violent drug offenders.
“In practice” is what I’m hoping to get to the bottom of.
What happens in prison is that when an inmate commits suicide, there is an inquiry which looks not just at the actual incident, but also at the whole management of the prison and the policies of the organisation.
Naturally no employee wants the blame laid at their door, paperwork will be closely scrutinised, from various accomodation umit report logs, anything on the inmates record such as medical matters or even the inmaets fincial affairs 0 they could be in debt to other inmates who want to collect.
No matter how diligent any large organisation, it is usually possible to find fault somewhere.
The result is that procedures end up being carried out by the book, and reality is that organisations need some flexibility in the application of their own rules (it is an effective industrial dispute tactic to work to rule)
The result is that although the prison regime might become more opressive, things are being done so correctly that if anything does go wrong, such as another suicide, everyone will have their asses covered.
Also, don’t forget, that until the inquiry has made its findings known, an inmates death is not a suicide and could be a potential murder, hence the need to preserve evidence and the need to seek out possible evidence.
Just because an inmate has hanged themselves, this need not exclude a finding of murder.