The guy who came up with it did say that you should turn the other cheek, so…
Ah, so let them wander the streets? I wouldn’t want to be locked up, so they shouldn’t be, either.
If my neighbor gets beaten up, it is no threat to me. If the neighbor on my other side gets beaten up, it isn’t a threat. When does it become a threat if society is being affected by what they do? Even if that threat is the continual stealing of money from my pocket to house them in a prison?
If someone is dangerous clearly they shouldn’t be “wandering the streets”. Some need to be incarcerated. But we shouldn’t forget that they are still people. I think the Golden Rule applies in this way: if you were convicted of a serious crime, would you want to be encouraged to suicide during the long years of captivity? This is the issue with labeling. People categorize others in such a way so that they don’t have to ever think of putting themselves in their shoes. Dehumanizing others allows people to accept awful behavior towards them.
No one voted for him.
Senators in Canada are appointed. The position of senator is a rich reward for political bagmen and politicians who failed to be elected or preached the party line while disguised as “journalists.”
The clown in question, of course, is a Tory, which explains his views on state murder.
:::reads thread and gets Evil Conservative gleam in his eye:::
Why not … MAKE … prisoners kill themselves? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Yeah, I might be different than the norm on that. I have a wonderful life and I’m extremely happy, but the thought of dying doesn’t fill me with dread or worry me. Everyone treats death like it’s such a huge deal, and…I dunno, it’s sad for the people who loved you, but for the person dying, it’s either nothingness, which you aren’t around to experience anyway, and thus not a problem, or there is some sort of afterlife, which is probably quite lovely. I just can’t get too worked up about it. I know that makes me weird, but the whole “preserve human life at all costs” thing doesn’t resonate with me.
I don’t think that making the solution available is the same as encouraging people to commit suicide. As I said in my OP, the option would have to be a lot more complex than just a rope in the cells - I’d want to see strict guidelines and transparency on any case where an inmate was requesting assisted suicide.
Suicide is not murder, and not all Conservatives are fans of murder.
It would be if the cell sports a ceiling hook and a noose forever dangling from it.
I’d say most want a return to state-sanctoned murder.
With Alberta Reform now running the country, it’s no surprise it keeps resurfacing year after year.
Since I’ve said twice now that this is not what I’m talking about, I’m not addressing this again.
But it is. Even if what you’re dangling is not literally a noose, but simply the promise that “hey, buddy, why doncha kill yourself,” it’s pretty much the same thing. What you and the Senator are proposing is, inevtiably, an ongoing program of encouraging people convicted of murder to kill themselves.
Frankly, it’s kind of gross.
The clown in question had his daughter kidnapped, raped and murdered in 2002 which probably goes a long way to explain his stance on this issue. Maybe I should explain your stance as typical left wing sympathy caring more for the criminal rather than the victim?
That seems fair.
In pragmatic terms, I can’t think of any means of suicide that could be left in a prisoner’s cell that could not also be used to kill other people.
Or any way to make sure the suicide wasn’t forced. CCTV wouldn’t do the the latter: “whisper: use the rope tonight or your son’s dead.”
And in some cases it would kill, literally, the chances of resolving other crimes by getting information at a later date.
Quite apart from the fact that innocent people might kill themselves too.
Yes; it’s a bit of a catch-22, isn’t it?
But it could even be used to argue that maybe that person did not commit those crimes. Hell, they could leave behind a heartfelt letter saying they never did it and they only took their own life because they couldn’t live with everyone thinking of them as a monster.
Being able to take your own life is one is the rights you lose when you’re incarcerated.
It quite obviously is. With due respect, it’s preposterous to suggest otherwise. If you hand someone a device with which to commit suicide and say “Hey, if you wanna kill yourself, here you go” what the hell else do you think that means? What’s the point of doing it if you aren’t hoping to get some of them to take you up on it?
I’d further state it’s beyond the limits of believable innocence for someone to say they don’t think that further encouragement would be inevitable.
Counselling or aiding suicide is a criminal offense in Canada. If anyone of any political stripe is suggesting it, they are suggesting a criminal act.
Maybe I should explain your stand as typical right-wing recreational outrage and righteous indignation at being prevented from murdering (by proxy, of course) for vengeance in the name of victim rights, and Senator Hang 'em High’s as soapbox promotion of suicide.
Sounds fair.
It’s not that leftists care more for the criminal. It’s that we care some. Caring for the victims is easy. Almost anyone can do it. It’s rarer to find people who can have compassion for the bully. Particularly in a society such as ours where opposition to dehumanization of criminals is regularly mischaracterized as making excuses for their behavior. Or being “soft”. Macho bullshit about killing them all and letting God sorting them out is easy. (Not that anyone has gone so far here.) It’s caring about what happens to them and being seen to care that takes courage.
Heck, I’m (supposedly) a rightist and I care about the criminal as a human being. For that reason, among others, I am dead-set (sorry about the pun) against the death penalty. And that includes so-called prison justice. Additionally, I’m appalled at the glee evidenced by so many people I usually think better of who support said prison justice.
Which is more compassionate - putting someone in jail for the rest of their life, or allowing them the option of a painless, quick death at a time of their own choosing?
Even if you don’t care about the criminal as a human being, surely it’s fair to care about what we empower the state to do? I, personally, don’t want the government given the right to kill people in cold blood. Personally I don’t give a shit if Mohammad Shafia lives or dies; he’s irredeemable scum. But that’s not the same as wanting the govenrment to kill him; I don’t want my government throwing a noose into anyone’s cell, because that way lies madness, evil, and abuse. Nor do I want prison guards goading inmates into suicide, an **inevitable **result of this plan.
Human beings are human beings, and to the greatest reasonable and responsible extent we must treat them all as such. Expressing a desire that prisoner be treated with a basic degree of humaneness isn’t being “soft on criminals.” That’s bullshit, the kind of stupidity parroted by the kind of people who say that anyone who opposes the government is a “traitor” or that anyone with an inkling of governmental fiscal prudence “hates the poor.”
Saying “let’s kill the murderer” is easy. Recreational outrage always is. Saying “we need to remember that criminals are still humans” is a bit harder, but if you’re legitimately a humanist it’s the way you have to go.
And the government never kills anyone anyway. It always falls to some government employee, an actual person, to carry out the job. And doing such a job can change a person, and usually not for the better.