'Convicted serial rapist to be voluntarily euthanised in Belgium'

Billy86

ryanf1 wrote: »

Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?

Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.

Egginacup

PLUG71 wrote: »

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!

You don't know what you're talking about mate. If he was suffering from a some curable but agonising disease he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through medical treatment. If he was suffering from a terminal and painful condition he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through euthanasia. If he was suffering from a debilitating condition like Alzheimer's or something causing extreme mental suffering he would have the right to have that suffering alleviated through euthanasia as well.

You just want the suffering to continue, because it's mental rather than physical, because you're a sadist. Though I'd imagine that you'd be quite happy for him to be tortured as well.

And if you took the time to read the article you'd see that he already served the sentence required of him and REFUSED parole. He's not been let off anything, FFS!

Egginacup

Billy86 wrote: »

Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.

When you opt for euthanasia you are given a drink to drink....it basically slowly puts you to sleep and stops your heart. I know two people who have euthanised themselves. One woman had her family around her and said "So what shall we drink to?" It was kind of weird.

SeanW

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

Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.

Gael23

Egginacup wrote: »

When you opt for euthanasia you are given a drink to drink....it basically slowly puts you to sleep and stops your heart. I know two people who have euthanised themselves. One woman had her family around her and said "So what shall we drink to?" It was kind of weird.

I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

Egginacup

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.

You don't lose your normal rights as a citizen. You lose your right to freedom and some ancillary rights like the right to be secure about your possessions (you can be searched for contraband). You still have many of the rights that non-prisoners have.

SeanW

floggg wrote: »

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?

Justice should indeed be all about victim. Ya know, the person who was wronged.

Victimless crimes should be taken off the statute books or treated lightly. I.E. if there's no victim, then no-one has been harmed. So what did the perp do wrong?

Murder would continue to be treated very harshly because the victim has suffered the ultimate loss.

end of the road

ryanf1 wrote: »

Is there a difference between execution and euthanasia?

yes. execution is forced all of the time, so is therefore murder

Billy86

SeanW wrote: »

Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.

What exactly does that have to do with euthanising a criminal?

Billy86

ryanf1 wrote: »

I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

I'm not sure, but think lethal injection is more standard these days.

end of the road

SeanW wrote: »

Huh? Punishing someone for a crime does not "sanction and condone" it.

it does if the punishment is the exact same as what they did, so for rape the criminal is raped or murdered. thats a form of legitimizing the crime.

SeanW wrote: »

Pandering to criminals and treating them with kid gloves really DOES "sanction and condone" their crimes.

well as that doesn't happen, it certainly doesn't. even if it did it wouldn't.

SeanW wrote: »

Like how Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for their 100th+ trial for serious crime.

thats the fault of the system. protest or write a letter

BetterThanThou

Truthfully, any person who commits a series of rapes must have some mental illness causing them to do so, no normal person would do that. I'm not condoning what he did either, I don't think someone like him should ever be allowed walk free again. But the guy probably greatly regrets what he's done, considering he rejected parole, and he's been in prison 30 years, he's only 50 now, so that could easily be another 30 years he's in prison if he were kept there. He's already suffered for 30 years, 10 years more than he had been living when he went to prison. I've heard it costs something like 200k a year to keep a prisoner behind bars, I really don't see the issue with euthanasia in this particular case, I think it should be offered to more long term prisoners.

end of the road

ryanf1 wrote: »

I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

no it shouldn't. a drink is the only way. the electric chair is as backward as those who support such nonsense. most likely bible thumping dimwits

Egginacup

ryanf1 wrote: »

I don't think for convicted criminals it should be so humane, maybe some sort of sedative in a drink but the actual death should be via another method i.e. electric chair.

Gotta have that last bit of agony, don't you!

wp_rathead

BetterThanThou wrote: »

Truthfully, any person who commits a series of rapes must have some mental illness causing them to do so, no normal person would do that. I'm not condoning what he did either, I don't think someone like him should ever be allowed walk free again. But the guy probably greatly regrets what he's done, considering he rejected parole, and he's been in prison 30 years, he's only 50 now, so that could easily be another 30 years he's in prison if he were kept there. He's already suffered for 30 years, 10 years more than he had been living when he went to prison. I've heard it costs something like 200k a year to keep a prisoner behind bars, I really don't see the issue with euthanasia in this particular case, I think it should be offered to more long term prisoners.

People with no mental illness do horrible and cruel things everyday

Gael23

end of the road wrote: »

no it shouldn't. a drink is the only way. the electric chair is as backward as those who support such nonsense. most likely bible thumping dimwits

Egginacup wrote: »

Gotta have that last bit of agony, don't you!

Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?

floggg

SeanW wrote: »

Justice should indeed be all about victim. Ya know, the person who was wronged.

Victimless crimes should be taken off the statute books or treated lightly. I.E. if there's no victim, then no-one has been harmed. So what did the perp do wrong?

Murder would continue to be treated very harshly because the victim has suffered the ultimate loss.

So if the victim wants a shoplifer jailed for life should we accede to their demands?

And there are very few, if any, truly victimless crimes. But if you take something like insurance fraud, since a corporation doesn't have feelings how would a victim-centric approach to punishment work there?

Since there's no human victim to appease do we give them a different type of punishment than for other types of fraud?

harry Bailey esq

Billy86 wrote: »

Well obviously one is at the command of the state, the other is at the request of the individual but as for method, I don't think so but am not 100% definite.

Lethal injection seems to be the norm in both instances, i remember watching a docmentary years ago about euthenasia clinics in Switzerland, basically what they do is give the patients a high dose of benzos or zopiclone,wait until they fall into a deep sleep and administer the injection.In the states,the prisoner is stapped down and injected.The fatal formula in the syringe is the same as what federal prisons use.I think it contains potassium but not arsed looking up Wikipedia

end of the road

ryanf1 wrote: »

Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?

yes.

CruelCoin

osarusan wrote: »

There was a thread about this a few months ago - so many posters who would usually want him murdered painfully suddenly wanted him to have to rot in prison.

EDIT: Here it is.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057291198

The idea you're missing is they want him to suffer.

Euthanasia is easy, rotting in a cell or violent murder are not.

Not all deaths are equal.

h2005

ryanf1 wrote: »

Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?

He is being removed from this world forever. What do we gain by increasing his suffering as he is euthanised?

PhilBill

h2005 wrote: »

He is being removed from this world forever. What do we gain by increasing his suffering as he is euthanised?

Some lives are worse than death.

PhilBill

He wants to die as he cannot take life anymore. Someone who has committed such crimes should suffer for the rest of his days and should not be given the easy way out.

Gael23

Give him a rope with a noose tied if he wants to die.

Billy86

PhilBill wrote: »

He wants to die as he cannot take life anymore. Someone who has committed such crimes should suffer for the rest of his days and should not be given the easy way out.

How does this benefit society?

PhilBill

Billy86 wrote: »

How does this benefit society?

You could ask that question about literally anything.

Egginacup

ryanf1 wrote: »

Should someone who is guilty of such crimes as committed by this man be allowed to die peacefully?

So you're happy for the guy to die by his own hand so long as he does it in some horrific manner like dowsing himself in petrol and lighting a match just to satisfy your own sickness? You need some counselling, I'd say.

looking_around

let him die, he's served time. his victims gain nothing by forcing him to stay alive, the government gains nothing by paying to keep him alive.

Gael23

Egginacup wrote: »

So you're happy for the guy to die by his own hand so long as he does it in some horrific manner like dowsing himself in petrol and lighting a match just to satisfy your own sickness? You need some counselling, I'd say.

He wants to die because he claims he is suffering intolerably so why not let him make that choice, toe reality is too many people make that choice to take their own life every day. Would Doctors intervene like this to end the suffering of a terminally ill patient?

Billy86

PhilBill wrote: »

You could ask that question about literally anything.

So it doesn't benefit society at all then, all it does is excite some sadists while allowing the euthanasia to go ahead would save tax payers a lot of money and the general public any risk of him re-offending if he were ever granted release.

Holsten

I can't imagine after 30 years in prison you'd be in the right frame of mind to make this decision.

I'm not completely against it if it is 100% what he wants but to me it's too similar to the death penalty which I am against.

Deenie123

He's served 30 years. He refused parole, presumably still considers himself a threat to others. Doesn't want (on some level) to do it again and so in lieu of parole, wants to be allowed to die.

Makes sense to me.

rosedream

I am glad he wants to die, tbh. Saves taxpayer money, less risk of him re-offending if he ever got a chance to be released. It might also bring a bit of peace of mind to his victims, knowing that he is gone off this earth for good.

looking_around

Holsten wrote: »

I can't imagine after 30 years in prison you'd be in the right frame of mind to make this decision.

Idk, I think there comes a time euthanasia should be allowed regardless of "frame of mind" (elderly and frail for example, serious criminals...I'm not for forced death, but I see nothing wrong with giving them the choice and then people who severely ill with no recovery possible/likely.)

end of the road

PhilBill wrote: »

He wants to die as he cannot take life anymore. Someone who has committed such crimes should suffer for the rest of his days and should not be given the easy way out.

no he shouldn't. if he wants to die, thats his right

end of the road

ryanf1 wrote: »

Give him a rope with a noose tied if he wants to die.

no, a proper injection is the way to go, or a drink

Gael23

end of the road wrote: »

no, a proper injection is the way to go, or a drink

Will it be a drink or injection?

Egginacup

ryanf1 wrote: »

He wants to die because he claims he is suffering intolerably so why not let him make that choice, toe reality is too many people make that choice to take their own life every day. Would Doctors intervene like this to end the suffering of a terminally ill patient?

Well people like you are very fond of asking the question "what if it was your family member who was raped" ....always the easy and childish cop out. So how about "what if it was your brother who got wasted one night and killed his kids and their mother because he burnt the house down or went bananas in some trance and killed your father"? And now he wants to die....would you be all in agreement with us wanting him to suffer for decades?

end of the road

ryanf1 wrote: »

Will it be a drink or injection?

whatever one wants

SeanW

end of the road wrote: »

it does if the punishment is the exact same as what they did, so for rape the criminal is raped or murdered. thats a form of legitimizing the crime.

I would have thought it was more about punishing the crime. Silly me, I would have thought that making someone pay for a crime does not legitimize it in any way.

thats the fault of the system. protest or write a letter

But you have to understand that when Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for his 137th crime, people start wondering what the alternatives are ...

floggg wrote: »

So if the victim wants a shoplifer jailed for life should we accede to their demands?

Within reason. It would be necessary to consider whether the impact on the victim, or the likliehood of the perpetrator re-offending on release, would warrant such a penalty.

And there are very few, if any, truly victimless crimes.

Oh there are plenty of victimless crimes. The best example is that of Ireland prior to 1996 when homosexuality was a crime.
"Speeding" on for example a grade separated dual carriageway with a 30kph speed limit is another. (The majority of speed offenses fall into this category IMHO)
How about growing your own weed? There a victim with that?
And the Feminist-Left is about to impose a new victimless offense in Ireland - by imposing the misandrist "Swedish model" on sex-work. (I.E. the buyer is always a criminal, regardless of the circumstances)

These are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head. In both in the past, present, and future there is plenty of victimless crime offenses just on our fair small isle. That's before we get to more authoritarian regimes like China, North Korea, the Islamic world etc.

But if you take something like insurance fraud, since a corporation doesn't have feelings how would a victim-centric approach to punishment work there?

Since there's no human victim to appease do we give them a different type of punishment than for other types of fraud?

You take into account the likely damage. Take insurance fraud, this increases the the premiums of all customers of that company and indeed throughout the system. So defrauding an insurance company out of €100,000 under a certain type of insurance for example is the equivalent of stealing that sum of money from everyone, esepcially users of that kind of insurance and customers of that company. The same would be true of other non-individual-victim crimes such as environmental crime, tax fraud and the like.

Egginacup

ryanf1 wrote: »

He wants to die because he claims he is suffering intolerably so why not let him make that choice, toe reality is too many people make that choice to take their own life every day. Would Doctors intervene like this to end the suffering of a terminally ill patient?

In Belgium and the Netherlands, yes.

You seem to have some kind of difficulty in getting your head round the fact that this is in a country where euthanasia is available to those who request it. You keep thinking this is America or Ireland where the state and the public stick their noses into issues that don't concern them just to make a point.

Egginacup

SeanW wrote: »

I would have thought it was more about punishing the crime. Silly me, I would have thought that making someone pay for a crime does not legitimize it in any way.

But you have to understand that when Johnny McScumbag kills someone while out on bail for his 137th crime, people start wondering what the alternatives are ...

Within reason. It would be necessary to consider whether the impact on the victim, or the likliehood of the perpetrator re-offending on release, would warrant such a penalty.

Oh there are plenty of victimless crimes. The best example is that of Ireland prior to 1996 when homosexuality was a crime.
"Speeding" on for example a grade separated dual carriageway with a 30kph speed limit is another. (The majority of speed offenses fall into this category IMHO)
How about growing your own weed? There a victim with that?
And the Feminist-Left is about to impose a new victimless offense in Ireland - by imposing the misandrist "Swedish model" on sex-work. (I.E. the buyer is always a criminal, regardless of the circumstances)

These are just the examples I can think of off the top of my head. In both in the past, present, and future there is plenty of victimless crime offenses just on our fair small isle. That's before we get to more authoritarian regimes like China, North Korea, the Islamic world etc.

You take into account the likely damage. Take insurance fraud, this increases the the premiums of all customers of that company and indeed throughout the system. So defrauding an insurance company out of €100,000 under a certain type of insurance for example is the equivalent of stealing that sum of money from everyone, esepcially users of that kind of insurance and customers of that company. The same would be true of other non-individual-victim crimes such as environmental crime, tax fraud and the like.

I would take umbrage with the "victims" of insurance fraud. The increased premiums come at the behest of the insurance company/corporation purely to recoup their loss/increase their profit. The corporation could, if it were truly altruistic, take the loss and not affect others' payments. But corporations are not altruistic. They are predatory and only seek to make profits no matter the damage or ramifications.

desertcircus

PLUG71 wrote: »

Would you still see it in the same light if somebody close to you was raped or killed?

I think not somehow.

That's not a point. Our entire justice system is built upon the principle of impartiality.

osarusan

CruelCoin wrote: »

The idea you're missing is they want him to suffer.

I didn't miss the point at all - that was my point.

The comments would usually be along the lines of:

'Cut off his balls and let him slowly bleed to death.'
'Execute him. it's the only way to be sure he'll never reoffend.'
'Why should my taxes pay to keep him alive?'
'Give him the needle. I'll inject him myself.'

But now that this guy actually wants to die:

'Execution is too easy, let him rot in prison.'
'Why should he get the easy way out.'
'It should be painful, not humane.'


It's like, whatever he wants, is the thing he can't be allowed to have. It's only what he should get if he doesn't want it.

Because whatever he doesn't want, that's what's needed to make him SUFFERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

GalwayGuitar

Lol he had his request denied. No he can suffer like he deserves.

Deenie123

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Lol he had his request denied. No he can suffer like he deserves.

You find human suffering funny? That's interesting. I'm all in favour of people doing their time. He's served his. 30 years, was up for parole and he himself refused parole. Interestingly, I wonder if he was out on parole would he have been able to opt for it himself? Or just have access to the tools necessary for it? But in the meantime he may well have attacked someone else... So he wanted to stay in prison and die there. But you find any of that funny? Weird.

GalwayGuitar

Deenie123 wrote: »

You find human suffering funny? That's interesting. I'm all in favour of people doing their time. He's served his. 30 years, was up for parole and he himself refused parole. Interestingly, I wonder if he was out on parole would he have been able to opt for it himself? Or just have access to the tools necessary for it? But in the meantime he may well have attacked someone else... So he wanted to stay in prison and die there. But you find any of that funny? Weird.

I'm not a bleeding heart, sorry.

Deenie123

Neither am I, I just think it's weird to delight in human suffering. That doesn't make me a bleeding heart, that means I'm not a psychopath of some description.

GalwayGuitar

Deenie123 wrote: »

Neither am I, I just think it's weird to delight in human suffering. That doesn't make me a bleeding heart, that means I'm not a psychopath of some description.

A convicted murderer and rapist is pacing his cell and going mad. Well good. I would say its what he deserves.

Deenie123

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

A convicted murderer and rapist is pacing his cell and going mad. Well good. I would say its what he deserves.

I think the punishment fits the crime, but I don't delight in it or find it funny. Finding it funny or entertaining is a bit disturbed tbh