Discussion Should criminals be allowed to suicide?

[SilentSadness]

It's common knowledge that criminals and suspected criminals are often placed under "suicide watch" where they are monitored regularly. This includes high-profile cases where the person involved has committed serious crimes. Do you think those people should be allowed to commit suicide while awaiting trial or after their trial? Please avoid mentioning real people.

 

[L9my]

depends on the crime (no i will not elaborate)

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

After the trial (so that we have closure on what happened and whether the person is actually guilty or not), sure. I see no reason to force them to suffer for however long their sentence is. "Vengeance" or "justice" or "payback" through someone else's suffering is pointless given that in 100, 200, 300 years everything will be forgotten. Why be the progenitor of more meaningless evil on this earth, when there is already too much to bear?

 

[Namelesa]

I would say any criminal should be allowed after the trial so we can more be able figure out if they actually did the suspected crime or not. When thats done and if they want to die I would say let them. If someone to was to stay in prison for the rest of their life and they want to suicide, why force them to live and have them use resources when those resources can be used for innocent people who don't want to die? Prison should just serve to lessen harm and crimes done and if someone wants to die then they can't harm anyone anymore so it still serves that purpose if they went through their whole sentence or not.

 

[monetpompo]

after the trial. 12 angry men comes to mind.

 

[Kalista]

"Should criminals be allowed to suicide?"

yes -- whatever they've done, however severe it is.

we're being asked if they should be allowed as if we have full authority and control over their lives. no matter their crime, the right to end one's life is not something that's handed down by society -- it's an individual decision. that decision is not some privilege that's ever permitted. only people external of them decided that to build some form of order. it's still their life and it's theirs to take. anything outside of that choice is just a way to make others feel better, or to fulfill a constructed sense of 'justice.'

if they choose to die before or after the trial, it makes no difference as they're dead. there is no more them.

controlling their life is no better than how society already restricts our own freedom to die.

 

[areazione]

SHi guys, I've been a new user for about 30 minutes, to answer your question, it should be allowed but only after the process and after a period of time to be defined in order to be That the person wants this, because as soon as the sentence is passed everyone would want to commit suicide, maybe you are alone in a new and often hostile world, but after a while you get used to those rhythms and accept your new life perhaps, only at that point will you be truly aware of what to do I believe that euthanasia should be a right just like life, just as a person should not be forced to die, a person should not be forced to live, but it should be a Decision dictated by a period, no, because everyone has them, in my opinion, this is my personal point of view, a person must make this decision unless he has external disabling factors. with serenity and tranquility, you have to be the one to decide and not your anger and desperation, because as long as you feel those feelings it means you are still alive, lucky is who still feels something and It's not just a stupid empty box like me, sorry guys I went on too long, I hope I explained myself, also because English is not my language, greetings, I'm happy to be among you

 

[Forever Sleep]

Definitely not before the trial ends. Those who have been victims deserve some sort of truth/ closure. As for after- what are we really talking about? If they are caught trying to kill themselves, I imagine they will likely be stopped. The same as on the outside world. Why should they be given special treatment to avoid their suffering? We're not allowed to do it whilst authorities know about it.

What are we really saying though? They should deliberately leave them to do it or maybe even allow them the means available to do it? Again- we aren't given that 'privelage' in the real world. If the authorities find out we are suicidal and have a method to hand, it's off to the psyche ward.

I don't really know. On the one hand, they would be saving the tax payers earnings. On the other- sorry but if say a parent murders their family, I kind of feel they deserve to live with the guilt of that. That is part of their punishment.

There has to be a deterrent against doing crimes. It's not just about punishing people. It's about warning potential perpetraitors that they will be punished severely if they hurt other people.

I find it more interesting that say capital punishment (which I don't support- our legal systems are too fallible) would be a terrifying punishment for some people but maybe a release for others. So, how to adequately punish a person is a whole question in itself. Plus- what is actually effective? Is punishment effective to reform? Is it enough of a deterrent? Are all people capable of reform?

Vengeance" or "justice" or "payback" through someone else's suffering is pointless given that in 100, 200, 300 years everything will be forgotten. Why be the progenitor of more meaningless evil on this earth, when there is already too much to bear?

I don't think the victims of the most heinous crimes see it like that. Parents of murdered children say. They have the next 50-80 years waking up knowing what their child went through at the hands of another. I think it's perfectly reasonable and natural for them to want that person to atone. It would be hard to feel anything but hate towards someone who had brutalised someone you love.

We don't forget entirely either. Notorious criminals like Jack the Ripper are still talked about today. Other serial rapists/ killers sometimes end up inheriting the name. Women/ people can still imagine the fear that must have been rife when these people were active.

I'm not convinved that our justice or penal systems are effective. However, cruel and harmful actions do need to be recognised and dissuaded. They hurt people currently. I don't find the whole: Nothing will matter in 100, 200, 300 years comforting. Besides, if we let abusive, toxic, violent behaviour slide, in 100 years, I imagine it will have grown much worse.

 

[Custos]

This might be controversial here, but I think that suicide should be largely prevented. But if someone is of should mind I am open to assisted dying and I think that is one right that someone should not loss in prison.