'Convicted serial rapist to be voluntarily euthanised in Belgium'

allibastor

PhilBill wrote: »

Is this a joke? I say let him see what it's like to be anally annihilated in prison!


http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0103/670154-belgium-euthanasia/

Why is it a joke, He has been in prison for 30 years and has deemed himself not to be suitable for parole. He obviously knows he is a danger and doesn't wish to be so.

If only every scum bag was this caring.

PLUG71

Davei141 wrote: »

It doesn't, it just gives PLUG71 a hard on.

Jog on ya muppet!

floggg

manonboard wrote: »

I think what people supporting 'more suffering is bad' side of the discussion is that allowing prison inmates to suffer for peoples pleasure is an assault on the progress of our society. As in it would hurt us all as a whole to inflict pain upon another person for our appeasement.
I suspect most would support it if it helped future society by rehabilitating him.. but that doesn't really happen with torture.. and his choice to kill himself remove the threat from our world..

I certainly dont benefit from a person suffering.. I do benefit from a threat vanishing from our streets.

I think the harm would be rather more tangible than that.

If we base our criminal justice system around revenge and tenhbflcirion of suffering, we will create an expectation and sense of entitlement on the part of victims and their families that they can see wrong doers suffer for their pleasure.

I think that expectation would likely encourage some to take justice into their own hands more often - which even aside from the risk to persons wrongly accused, would likely only perpetuate endless cycles of violence.

floggg

PLUG71 wrote: »

So then its ok to put this guy down.

Our so called progressive society let terminal sick people suffer but a serial rapist has choices?

It's not our society, is it. It's Belgium - where terminally sick people don't have to suffer and can equally seek euthanasia if they wish.

chupacabra

allibastor wrote: »

Why is it a joke, He has been in prison for 30 years and has deemed himself not to be suitable for parole. He obviously knows he is a danger and doesn't wish to be so.

If only every scum bag was this caring.

It shouldnt matter what he thinks or how "caring" he is. He deserves to suffer. 30 years is nothing compared to the horror this subhuman has inflicted.

manonboard

PLUG71 wrote: »

So then its ok to put this guy down.

Our so called progressive society let terminal sick people suffer but a serial rapist has choices?

yes I'm of the opinion its OK to put this guy down (because he chooses it).

Well although they are two completely different issues, Yes our irish society currently let terminal sick people suffer in ireland, but this is in belgium, from what a quick google search turns up, they also allow euthanasia for sick people.

It makes little sense to compare the two scenarios as what's right for one may not be right for the other, but in this case, they seem to be congruent (terminally ill in belgium and serial rapist in belgium)

A progressive society doesnt necessarily infer it's complete, it's evolving and these things take time. It's unlikely ever to reach a state where everyone is happy and everything balances with all similarities.

allibastor

chupacabra wrote: »

It shouldnt matter what he thinks or how "caring" he is. He deserves to suffer. 30 years is nothing compared to the horror this subhuman has inflicted.

But that is my point, He has inflicted pain and suffering on people with his horrible crimes.

But he is also saying that he doesn't wish to live as he knows he will never change. Why not let him die. I am all for eye for an eye. I don't think by him dying that it is an easy way out. when your dead your dead. Even in prison he can still have some good moments or some good parts of life. Why give them to him, and if he is the one who wants to die let him off, saves the tax payer money they can put towards something useful.

chupacabra

allibastor wrote: »

But that is my point, He has inflicted pain and suffering on people with his horrible crimes.

But he is also saying that he doesn't wish to live as he knows he will never change. Why not let him die. I am all for eye for an eye. I don't think by him dying that it is an easy way out. when your dead your dead. Even in prison he can still have some good moments or some good parts of life. Why give them to him, and if he is the one who wants to die let him off, saves the tax payer money they can put towards something useful.

I just have a problem with the fact that he is dying on his own terms. He shouldnt be given the satisfaction of it, as odd as that sounds. For him its a way out of whatever mental anguish he is suffering. He didnt give his victims a choice and so he shouldnt have the choice either.

allibastor

chupacabra wrote: »

I just have a problem with the fact that he is dying on his own terms. He shouldnt be given the satisfaction of it, as odd as that sounds. For him its a way out of whatever mental anguish he is suffering. He didnt give his victims a choice and so he shouldnt have the choice either.

But he is not dying on his own terms, really is he.

He is still in prison and has been for 30 years. He is still living with what he did. He still now thinks that he is a no hoper and should just end it.

At the end of the day it costs the tax payer a good bit of money to keep him in prison, this money could go towards an operation for a child or something similar.

As said I fully believe people who do the crimes he has committed should get a similar punishment, but at the same time, dead is dead, there is nothing here for you after that so he wont get to do anything else again, ever.

PLUG71

manonboard wrote: »

yes I'm of the opinion its OK to put this guy down (because he chooses it).

Well although they are two completely different issues, Yes our irish society currently let terminal sick people suffer in ireland, but this is in belgium, from what a quick google search turns up, they also allow euthanasia for sick people.

It makes little sense to compare the two scenarios as what's right for one may not be right for the other, but in this case, they seem to be congruent (terminally ill in belgium and serial rapist in belgium)

A progressive society doesnt necessarily infer it's complete, it's evolving and these things take time. It's unlikely ever to reach a state where everyone is happy and everything balances with all similarities.

But why should he have any choices?

PLUG71

allibastor wrote: »

But he is not dying on his own terms, really is he.

He is still in prison and has been for 30 years. He is still living with what he did. He still now thinks that he is a no hoper and should just end it.

At the end of the day it costs the tax payer a good bit of money to keep him in prison, this money could go towards an operation for a child or something similar.

As said I fully believe people who do the crimes he has committed should get a similar punishment, but at the same time, dead is dead, there is nothing here for you after that so he wont get to do anything else again, ever.

So the cost of keeping him for the last 30 years is ok?

Billy86

PLUG71 wrote: »

So the cost of keeping him for the last 30 years is ok?

So do you mean you would you have preferred him put to death right away, but not now 30 years later?

PLUG71

Billy86 wrote: »

So do you mean you would you have preferred him put to death right away, but not now 30 years later?

My point is that they have already kept him for 30 years and suddenly he gets choices!

Egginacup

PLUG71 wrote: »

So then its ok to put this guy down.

Our so called progressive society let terminal sick people suffer but a serial rapist has choices?

Another stupid statement. People in Belgium with terminal illnesses are allowed the option of euthanasia.

PLUG71

Egginacup wrote: »

Another stupid statement. People in Belgium with terminal illnesses are allowed the option of euthanasia.

Idid'nt know that!

I stand corrected and do apologise to all concerned!:rolleyes::)

Billy86

PLUG71 wrote: »

My point is that they have already kept him for 30 years and suddenly he gets choices!

Well given that euthanasia was only made legal 12 there years ago... be honest, did you read the article in the OP at all or is your argument purely emotive and nothing else?

And who's to say he didn't have that as a potential choice for the last 12 years that he only pursued more recently?

Egginacup

PLUG71 wrote: »

But why should he have any choices?

If he was sick and in need of an operation he would be well within his rights to receive medical treatment ...or would you be screaming about that too "No don't give him that painkiller or those antibiotics! That infection must worsen and he must suffer in agony and filth!!"

wp_rathead

chupacabra wrote: »

Not even a joke tbh. Serial rapists deserve nothing less than the disgusting crimes they themselves have committed. Death is far too lenient an ending for some.

You honestly don't see anything disturbing about wishing someone to be raped? I genuinely don't understand this mindset

PLUG71

Egginacup wrote: »

If he was sick and in need of an operation he would be well within his rights to receive medical treatment ...or would you be screaming about that too "No don't give him that painkiller or those antibiotics! That infection must worsen and he must suffer in agony and filth!!"

That is not the point!!

He is being given the right to have the choice to die.

Medical treatment has nothing to do with this and he should be treated if required!

He did the crime and should not be let off because basically he decides enough is enough!

manonboard

PLUG71 wrote: »

But why should he have any choices?

I think in this situation he is being given the choice ( and one i agree with)
because a) His prison sentence in is the hopes of rehabilitation in some way.. and if he actively has resigned himself to never learn to not be a serial rapist.. then he has quit the possibility of rehabilitation and thus keep him in prison in pointless..
Like if he was given parole now.. he would rape again.. He even turned down the chance of parole.. this to me means it's likely that he recognises that he a threat to society and wishes to end the pattern of violence/prison.. It's likely for selfish reasons.. but as it helps society I'm ok with that. Forcing him to be in prison and one day getting parole is a bigger threat to society.
and b) It permanently remove the threat from our society. So the authorities support his decision because it happens to agree with their goals.

The choice is just an illusion, he only has a choice because the outcome is what the authorities are happy with. A removal of the threat of a permanent serial rapist and a saving of money.

Thats how i see it anyways.

My desire is for a safer, minimal violent society free of rapists.. to this end, this works for me... though I admit, I feel some what saddened and ..em.. disheartened that we have another human being we were unable to educate/rehabilitate and show them the error of their ways.. All we've done is allow a person with violent tendencies to form(our fault, he was once a blank slate child like the rest of us) and a disregard for others equality (again..this thread is proof we teach this.. a few post back he was called SubHuman, he sees his victims this way)..and then lock em up until they wanted to die.. then we killed him..
Nothing progressive/helpful/or proud in any of that for us..

manonboard

To PLUG71

As you want him to stay in prison and continue his term. is it your opinion that society will benefit more from this than his volunteered death?
if so, in what ways? I think it's worth requiring to be considered, he could be out free again in the future if he continues his term.. and he has resigned himself to not changing.

What do you think?

PLUG71

manonboard wrote: »

To PLUG71

As you want him to stay in prison and continue his term. is it your opinion that society will benefit more from this than his volunteered death?
if so, in what ways? I think it's worth requiring to be considered, he could be out free again in the future if he continues his term.. and he has resigned himself to not changing.

What do you think?

Hands up, you are right!

Having read your reasoning in your posts I have to change my view regarding this!

floggg

PLUG71 wrote: »

Hands up, you are right!

Having read your reasoning in your posts I have to change my view regarding this!

Even if he was never eligible for parole, would you see a benefit for society as a whole to keeping him alive against his will?

If so, what.

end of the road

osarusan wrote: »

Post from that page:

you always get that **** on such facebook statuses/posts. just low rent mouthing off. the rest of us just sit back and think how pathetic they are

Billy86

PLUG71 wrote: »

He did the crime and should not be let off because basically he decides enough is enough!

Yeah, because death is exactly the same as being "let off". :rolleyes:

Which, by the way, he had a chance of anyway - as in early parole. He turned it down, a point among many which you appear to be going out of your way to ignore.

PhilBill

From what I can tell from previous posts a lot of people are talking of how much would be saved in the case of killing the man.

I don't know if this can be generalized to Belgium, but in America the death penalty costs a whole lot more than keeping the incarcerated until their death.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

PLUG71

floggg wrote: »

Even if he was never eligible for parole, would you see a benefit for society as a whole to keeping him alive against his will?

If so, what.

Yes to be honest I would in the respect that to the victims of rape who are the innocent party, it still looks like he is getting off lightly compared to them.

end of the road

chupacabra wrote: »

Not even a joke tbh. Serial rapists deserve nothing less than the disgusting crimes they themselves have committed.

if you believe their crimes are wrong, you won't inflict the same thing on them. you will only inflict such things on them if you condone their crimes

harry Bailey esq

For a minute i thought it was our own 'cereal rapist' that was getting stiffed :pac:
Seriously why should this c*nt be given the easy option out,and it is the easy way out.Its euthenasia, its not like he's gonna get his head smashed in with a rock and strangled, although due to the nature of his crimes that might be a suitable punishment in the eyes of some,myself included,seeing as he was fond of a bit of that himself.
Let him rot,so what if the taxpayers foot the bill.The victims and their families are taxpayers too are they not?
Leave him be in the cell to dwell on his deeds,and if he reaches his 90th birthday drag him out and put him to sleep then.Poor show Belgium.

end of the road

PLUG71 wrote: »

Too many soft approaches to people like this rapist..

only a matter of time before this nonsense got a mention. was waiting for it.

PLUG71 wrote: »

Why should anyone give a stuff to how this guy is suffering in jail?

its called being a proper human being, who is above criminals and doesn't stoop to their level, unlike some here.

PLUG71 wrote: »

Is it of some peoples opinion that to keep him alive to to mistreat him?

to keep him alive if he doesn't want to be is a form of miss treatment yes

osarusan

PhilBill wrote: »

I don't know if this can be generalized to Belgium

I don't think so - capital cases cost a bloody bomb. Executions cost a bit too.

This case would involve neither.

floggg

PhilBill wrote: »

From what I can tell from previous posts a lot of people are talking of how much would be saved in the case of killing the man.

I don't know if this can be generalized to Belgium, but in America the death penalty costs a whole lot more than keeping the incarcerated until their death.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

If you read the article, you'd realise why those costs are incurred.

If the state is going to sanction the death of a person, at the very least they should be as certain as possible of their guilt. In the absence of a guilty plea and an acceptance of the death penalty, that means lots of appeals, court cases, legal costs etc.

Here, the person involved wants to die. The only cost in euthanising him is carrying out the procedure itself.

PLUG71

end of the road wrote: »

only a matter of time before this nonsense got a mention. was waiting for it.



its called being a proper human being, who is above criminals and doesn't stoop to their level, unlike some here.



to keep him alive if he doesn't want to be is a form of miss treatment yes

So anybody that has a different opinion to you is talking nonsense?

Also I am not stooping to a criminals level by being of the opinion that this guy is being let of lightly!

How the hell is it wrong to make him live with his consequences?

harry Bailey esq

end of the road wrote: »

to keep him alive if he doesn't want to be is a form of miss treatment yes

Its called duty of care.Have you ever been in a typical cell?Every possible measure is taken to prevent 'people who don't want to be alive' from doing themselves in.

end of the road

allibastor wrote: »

I am all for eye for an eye.

if you condone an eye for an eye, your saying its okay to do more or less the same to the criminal that the criminal has done, meaning you sanction and condone such a crime

PhilBill

floggg wrote: »

If you read the article, you'd realise why those costs are incurred.

If the state is going to sanction the death of a person, at the very least they should be as certain as possible of their guilt. In the absence of a guilty plea and an acceptance of the death penalty, that means lots of appeals, court cases, legal costs etc.

Here, the person involved wants to die. The only cost in euthanising him is carrying out the procedure itself.

Sorry for recent post. I have just remembered that Belgian pharmacy's actually sell home euthanasia kit's.

end of the road

chupacabra wrote: »

I just have a problem with the fact that he is dying on his own terms. He shouldnt be given the satisfaction of it, as odd as that sounds. For him its a way out of whatever mental anguish he is suffering. He didnt give his victims a choice and so he shouldnt have the choice either.

well, the world doesn't and can't work like that

floggg

PLUG71 wrote: »

Yes to be honest I would in the respect that to the victims of rape who are the innocent party, it still looks like he is getting off lightly compared to them.

But what does it do for them exactly? Other than satisfy their desire to see another person suffer?

That's not something I want done in my name or behalf as a citizen and taxpayer.

And what does it do for society? How do we benefit as a whole by that?

PLUG71

end of the road wrote: »

if you condone an eye for an eye, your saying its okay to do more or less the same to the criminal that the criminal has done, meaning you sanction and condone such a crime

Such pc bull****!

end of the road

PLUG71 wrote: »

So the cost of keeping him for the last 30 years is ok?

yes

floggg

PLUG71 wrote: »

So anybody that has a different opinion to you is talking nonsense?

Also I am not stooping to a criminals level by being of the opinion that this guy is being let of lightly!

How the hell is it wrong to make him live with his consequences?

I would imagine they just think making somebody suffer for the sake of it is nonsense. I know I do.

PLUG71

floggg wrote: »

But what does it do for them exactly? Other than satisfy their desire to see another person suffer?

That's not something I want done in my name or behalf as a citizen and taxpayer.

And what does it do for society? How do we benefit as a whole by that?

It should not be so much about us and more about the victims!

Billy86

PLUG71 wrote: »

Such pc bull****!

Explain how the term 'PC' applies here.

Seriously, you're coming over like a walking emotive talking point who is trying to get all the facts and details wrong at this point. I'm not joking, you're so far off base on so many things that you almost appear to be on a wind up.

end of the road

PLUG71 wrote: »

Such pc bull****!

i knew you'd come out with "pc" it doesn't exist. what i said is fact. either you condemn such a crime full stop or you condone it full stop. if you condemn it (which i should hope you would) you do for all. if you condone it for a criminal, you condone it for all

Gael23

No.
I posted a thread on this some time ago but it's locked now. has the deed been done yet

andymurph

Personally, I'm on the fence with euthanasia, but in this case I would be strongly against it. IMO, when you commit such a crime you shouldn't have this option as you lose your normal rights as a citizen.

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

i knew you'd come out with "pc" it doesn't exist. what i said is fact. either you condemn such a crime full stop or you condone it full stop. if you condemn it (which i should hope you would) you do for all. if you condone it for a criminal, you condone it for all

Pfft, hipster.

Someone help, I'm not good at this meaningless buzzword crap!

floggg

PLUG71 wrote: »

It should not be so much about us and more about the victims!

But why?

What's the point of a dispassionate, impartial and objective justice system if sentencing and punishment is to be all about the victims?

If criminal justice was about appeasing and satisfying the victim, sentencing would be disproportionally excessive. You'd see life sentences handed out for a minor assault or theft, and conditions would be barbaric and cruel.

And what do you do about "victimless crime". If sentencing is all about victims, what do you do if the victim is dead already and left behind no family. Let them go?

Or how do you handle conflicting demands for victims regarding punishment of the same crime.

Also, a system that sanctions the infliction of pain and suffering in order to give others pleasure of relief doesn't sound very just or fair to me, and not something I would want any part of.

Billy86

andymurph wrote: »

Personally, I'm on the fence with euthanasia, but in this case I would be strongly against it. IMO, when you commit such a crime you shouldn't have this option as you lose your normal rights as a citizen.

What's the benefit of keeping him alive, though?

Gael23

Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?