Give us life or give us death!

[Corvus]

I happened to read a Time article about prisoners waiting on death row who are actually requesting that their executions take place sooner. This gave me some interesting questions about how people perceive punishment.

My questions are:

Should these requests be granted?

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?

[Dilettante]

Should these requests be granted?

If a heinous murderer asks to be executed because he/she becomes aware of the enormity of his/her crimes and therefore finds life unbearable and the burden of guilt too heavy, yet lacks the means or sang-froid to commit suicide, perhaps we should grant his/her wish. Perhaps it would be a sort of "mercy-killing". A philosophical school in my hometown calls this "judicial euthanasia". The problem is that I am not sure how this could be separated in the public's mind from just ordinary, traditional capital punishment. But the idea is worth studying and debating. Thanks for bringing it up, Corvus!

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?

Now, that's a different issue. I'm still studying the idea, but, in any case, only the worst criminals and only those cases where guilt can be established beyond doubt should probably be eligible, if any.

The flipside being that if one gets to choose one's own punishment, to what extent is it still punishment?

[otseng]

Should these requests be granted?

I think it should be. They are on death row after all.

I happened to read a Time article about prisoners waiting on death row who are actually requesting that their executions take place sooner.

Are their executions being stalled for any particular reason?

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?

This one is trickier. I would learn towards no because they have not done anything worthy of death (at least not judged of anything worthy of death).

Actually, I've been wondering about the whole incarceration system in general. There is no concept of restitution, rehabilitation, or even correction. It might serve as a deterrent, but obviously not enough of a deterrent with so many people in prison. I think the whole system needs to be reevaluated.

[Dilettante]

otseng wrote:

Actually, I've been wondering about the whole incarceration system in general. There is no concept of restitution, rehabilitation, or even correction. It might serve as a deterrent, but obviously not enough of a deterrent with so many people in prison. I think the whole system needs to be reevaluated.

I have often wondered about that too. Originally people were incarcerated mainly when they could not pay their debts. The worst criminals were either executed or, in the case of Britain, "transported" to America or Australia (I have to give kudos to both your countries for rising above such problematic origins). The idea of rehabilitation is relatively recent. It seems that our societies (mine is probably one of the most permissive) can't decide whether they should go with the traditional punishment approach or embrace the rehabilitation theory. This could be because it's hard to predict which criminals can be rehabilitated and which cannot, although I would tend to think that murderers, at least those of the psychopathic variety, are irrecuperable for society. I don't see how anyone can murder an innocent person and not have that action permanently affect their identity. The predominant view nowadays is that crime is a kind of social disease. So prisons would be the equivalent of hospitals for physical diseases. If the aim is to rehabilitate criminals, why insist that they serve a specified prison term? If, as those philosophers I cited before say, adequate psychotherapy and a sufficient number of massage sessions achieve rehabilitation of the criminal in a week, why make him stay any longer? The emphasis on rehabilitation is susceptible of reductio ad absurdum.
Anyway, sorry about this long digression...

[foshizzle]

Actually, I've been wondering about the whole incarceration system in general. There is no concept of restitution, rehabilitation, or even correction. It might serve as a deterrent, but obviously not enough of a deterrent with so many people in prison. I think the whole system needs to be reevaluated.

I'll agree with you here.

This topic is difficult. It should be left up to each state, and that state's laws of euthanasia. If they feel the need to change their legislature, then yes, it would be allowed there.

[ST88]

Should these requests be granted?
I am against the death penalty in general, so I would have to say no. In addition, I don't think that people who willingly broke the rules of society should get what they want. Prison is such a horrible place to be, I think that is punishment enough.

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?
In my opinion, this is an absurdity. This amounts to non-medical assisted suicide, which is illegal and unethical.

[ST88]

Are their executions being stalled for any particular reason?

On death-penalty cases, appeals through the various appeals court onion system are automatic and time-consuming. The accused has no control over the process.

Actually, I've been wondering about the whole incarceration system in general. There is no concept of restitution, rehabilitation, or even correction. It might serve as a deterrent, but obviously not enough of a deterrent with so many people in prison. I think the whole system needs to be reevaluated.

I, too, agree with you here. Here, in California, the prison system stopped being rehabilitative in the early 70s and 80s with Reagan and Wilson building "correctional facilities" by the hundreds. Drug crimes account for the vast majority of inmates. And now that the prison system has been privatized, there is a corporate mandate to maintain these prisons & their populations on a bottom-line basis.

ed: clarification

[Corvus]

Should these requests be granted?
I am against the death penalty in general, so I would have to say no.
In addition, I don't think that people who willingly broke the rules of society should get what they want. Prison is such a horrible place to be, I think that is punishment enough.

I'll ignore your opposition to the death penalty for the time being. What I must ask is; why is punishment something required by the justice system and why should pain be something that must be exacted on the criminal even if it's not for the purposes of rehabilitation? To what end, I ask. Is that really reparation, and does it suit some fruitful purpose? Perhaps if the criminal is made to serve a life imprisonment instead of a death sentence, he might learn a lesson, but it's a lesson that is important in its practical applications and completely irrelevant when he will be spending a lifetime in gaol, which will only culminate in the same end as an execution; oblivious repose!

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?
In my opinion, this is an absurdity. This amounts to non-medical assisted suicide, which is illegal and unethical.

Could you elaborate on why you would consider this unethical? The question is one to which I have yet to form my own answer.

[ST88]

Should these requests be granted?
I am against the death penalty in general, so I would have to say no.
In addition, I don't think that people who willingly broke the rules of society should get what they want. Prison is such a horrible place to be, I think that is punishment enough.

I'll ignore your opposition to the death penalty for the time being. What I must ask is; why is punishment something required by the justice system and why should pain be something that must be exacted on the criminal if its not for the purposes of rehabilitation? To what end, I ask. Is that really reparation, and does it suit some fruitful purpose? Perhaps if the criminal is made to serve a life imprisonment instead of a death sentence, he might learn a lesson, but it's a lesson that is important in its practical applications and completely irrelevant when he will be spending a lifetime in gaol, which will only culminate in the same end as an execution; oblivious repose!

(Aside: As an American, that word gaol is one of the weirdest Britishisms that I've come across in my years of translating British English into American English.)

If I were king, I'd change the prison system from purely punitive to a combination of rehabilitative and punitive. There are reform movements like this around the U.S., but they are the exception rather than the rule. I don't mind, for example, using prisoners as "slave labor" for the jurisdiction that has responsibility for them. Infinite repose is a waste of resources, in my opinion.

Also, in my thinking, the mythos of being jailed in the U.S. can be used as a deterrent -- Scared Straight, if you're familiar with that program.

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?
In my opinion, this is an absurdity. This amounts to non-medical assisted suicide, which is illegal and unethical.

Could you elaborate on why you would consider this unethical? The question is one to which I have yet to form my own answer.

I'm kind of feeling my way around this one also. At the gut level, it just seems wrong to help someone end h/h life. But why is it wrong? Why is suicide even wrong?

First: Suicide
In a perfect world of pure ethics, suicide is acceptable because it is an expression of control over one's own life. However, it has many unfortunate side effects within society, such as grief, confusion, guilt, etc. Assuming a world where we are interconnected with one another in a complex way, suicide harms the greater society by attempting to prove it wrong. That there is one person who felt s/he did not have the hope that things would get better, it is necessarily within the context of the culture from which s/he came. This is a failure of the culture, and the person committing suicide is the victim of it, whether it's a failure to diagnose depression or a failure to mitigate a necessary harm that society inflicts. But the correct response to such harm is to attempt change in the culture, not abandon it to the point where you abandon everything. For some reason, giving up becomes preferable to fighting it out. I don't pretend to know all the reasons for this, but it seems to me to be a complete breakdown in the passing of cultural knowledge from one generation to another.

Assisting a non-medical suicide, though not murder, in my opinion, is a similar expression of the failure of the culture. It is, in effect, admitting that there is no hope, that the culture is deeply flawed, and that there is nothing either of them wish to do to change it or their situation. The difference here is that the surviving member has neither the wish to escape the culture nor change it, yet also believes it to be corrupt and/or deeply flawed.

The prisoner who asks to be killed is, in effect, acknowledging that s/he has no place in the greater society, not even in prison. If prison is punishment, then the request should not be granted because the punishment has not been completed. If prison is rehabilitative, then the request should not be granted, because you don't allow someone to give up on themselves. If prison is a deterrent, then the request should not be granted because the prisoner should serve as an example of what happens when you break the rules of society. In addition, allowing the state to assist in a non-medical suicide puts the state in the tricky situation of both acknowledging its failure and maintaining the need to keep itself going. This is an absurdity. Either you change what's wrong or you leave it as part of the culture. If you believe it's wrong, but leave it alone anyway, you're disproving your own motives.

[Corvus]

Should these requests be granted?
I am against the death penalty in general, so I would have to say no.
In addition, I don't think that people who willingly broke the rules of society should get what they want. Prison is such a horrible place to be, I think that is punishment enough.

I'll ignore your opposition to the death penalty for the time being. What I must ask is; why is punishment something required by the justice system and why should pain be something that must be exacted on the criminal if its not for the purposes of rehabilitation? To what end, I ask. Is that really reparation, and does it suit some fruitful purpose? Perhaps if the criminal is made to serve a life imprisonment instead of a death sentence, he might learn a lesson, but it's a lesson that is important in its practical applications and completely irrelevant when he will be spending a lifetime in gaol, which will only culminate in the same end as an execution; oblivious repose!

If I were king, I'd change the prison system from purely punitive to a combination of rehabilitative and punitive. There are reform movements like this around the U.S., but they are the exception rather than the rule. I don't mind, for example, using prisoners as "slave labor" for the jurisdiction that has responsibility for them. Infinite repose is a waste of resources, in my opinion.

Your majesty, I think that's an excellent idea. Putting prisoners to some practical purpose, like building magnificent monuments to celebrate your reign, would undoubtedly add meaning to any imprisonment.

Also, in my thinking, the mythos of being jailed in the U.S. can be used as a deterrent -- Scared Straight, if you're familiar with that program.

I can imagine, though I'm not entirely convinced those sorts of programs work.

Should any criminal who requests an execution, no matter what their sentence, be it 5 years or 100, be so accommodated?
In my opinion, this is an absurdity. This amounts to non-medical assisted suicide, which is illegal and unethical.

Could you elaborate on why you would consider this unethical? The question is one to which I have yet to form my own answer.

I'm kind of feeling my way around this one also. At the gut level, it just seems wrong to help someone end h/h life. But why is it wrong? Why is suicide even wrong?

First: Suicide
In a perfect world of pure ethics, suicide is acceptable because it is an expression of control over one's own life. However, it has many unfortunate side effects within society, such as grief, confusion, guilt, etc. Assuming a world where we are interconnected with one another in a complex way, suicide harms the greater society by attempting to prove it wrong. That there is one person who felt s/he did not have the hope that things would get better, it is necessarily within the context of the culture from which s/he came. This is a failure of the culture, and the person committing suicide is the victim of it, whether it's a failure to diagnose depression or a failure to mitigate a necessary harm that society inflicts. But the correct response to such harm is to attempt change in the culture, not abandon it to the point where you abandon everything. For some reason, giving up becomes preferable to fighting it out. I don't pretend to know all the reasons for this, but it seems to me to be a complete breakdown in the passing of cultural knowledge from one generation to another.

Assisting a non-medical suicide, though not murder, in my opinion, is a similar expression of the failure of the culture. It is, in effect, admitting that there is no hope, that the culture is deeply flawed, and that there is nothing either of them wish to do to change it or their situation. The difference here is that the surviving member has neither the wish to escape the culture nor change it, yet also believes it to be corrupt and/or deeply flawed.

The prisoner who asks to be killed is, in effect, acknowledging that s/he has no place in the greater society, not even in prison. If prison is punishment, then the request should not be granted because the punishment has not been completed. If prison is rehabilitative, then the request should not be granted, because you don't allow someone to give up on themselves. If prison is a deterrent, then the request should not be granted because the prisoner should serve as an example of what happens when you break the rules of society. In addition, allowing the state to assist in a non-medical suicide puts the state in the tricky situation of both acknowledging its failure and maintaining the need to keep itself going. This is an absurdity. Either you change what's wrong or you leave it as part of the culture. If you believe it's wrong, but leave it alone anyway, you're disproving your own motives.

That makes a great deal of sense to me and I find nothing to disagree with.

(Aside: As an American, that word gaol is one of the weirdest Britishisms that I've come across in my years of translating British English into American English.)

I think Australians are agreeing with you. The newspapers have adopted "jail" from you Americans and the dictionaries are probably following suit. Since my newest dictionary is older than I am, I can't really check.