• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should LWOP prisoners be allowed to choose assisted suicide?

Should LWOP prisoners be allowed to choose assisted suicide?

  • Yes. No skin on my nose.

    Votes: 11 52.4%
  • Yes, after X-number years.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, if terminally ill.

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • No, I'm vicdictive and want them to suffer.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, they get what they deserve.

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • Not sure.

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • Total voters
    21

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Should LWOP prisoners be allowed to choose assisted suicide?

LWOP = Life WithOut Parole (iow: no death sentence)

1) Yes. No skin on my nose, They're not going anywhere, so if they want to die, fine.
2) Yes, but after they have served X-number of years.
3) Yes, but only if they have a terminal illness.
4) No. I want to be vindictive and take away all their decision making.
5) No. They earned their sentence, make them serve their sentence.
6) Not sure. Let's discuss the pros and cons.

I say yes (#1). Doesn't matter to me if they are live or dead. I also have no problem with doctors assisting, as I am an advocate of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia in general, but that's another topic for another thread.
 
Yes, but the victim should be allowed to play doctor.
 
None of the above. I don't think there ought to be life without parole, anyone who is never getting out of prison should be put down.
 
None of the above. I don't think there ought to be life without parole, anyone who is never getting out of prison should be put down.
If this were allowed, it would be a step in that direction. Can you live with incremental steps, or do you insist on 'all or nothing'?
 
If this were allowed, it would be a step in that direction. Can you live with incremental steps, or do you insist on 'all or nothing'?

Sure, but since I think anyone ought to be able to commit suicide whenever they want to, I'm already there. I just don't think that people who will never get out of prison are contributing anything to society and therefore need to be executed to free up space for other people who might be rehabilitated.
 
Anyone should be allowed to choose. The removal of choice is always a mar on mankind.
 
Sure, but since I think anyone ought to be able to commit suicide whenever they want to, I'm already there. I just don't think that people who will never get out of prison are contributing anything to society and therefore need to be executed to free up space for other people who might be rehabilitated.
Fair enough. :)
 
Should LWOP prisoners be allowed to choose assisted suicide?

LWOP = Life WithOut Parole (iow: no death sentence)

1) Yes. No skin on my nose, They're not going anywhere, so if they want to die, fine.
2) Yes, but after they have served X-number of years.
3) Yes, but only if they have a terminal illness.
4) No. I want to be vindictive and take away all their decision making.
5) No. They earned their sentence, make them serve their sentence.
6) Not sure. Let's discuss the pros and cons.

I say yes (#1). Doesn't matter to me if they are live or dead. I also have no problem with doctors assisting, as I am an advocate of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia in general, but that's another topic for another thread.


I vote no.But at the same time if a lifer wants to kill himself then the guards should make no effort what so ever to stop him.
 
Anyone should be allowed to choose. The removal of choice is always a mar on mankind.

Exactly. Anyone who wants to end his life should be able to do so. Why do we put down dogs and cats who have lived out their lives and have nothing but disability and suffering left, but humans have to live on to the bitter end?
 
If the prisoner chooses suicide, he must also volunteer for the victim to be given the right to choose if he wants to kill him first. Shoot him, whatever. The victim would be defined as remaining family, etc., such as Ron Goldman's father.
 
I have no problems with allowing them to commit suicide. They'll still be serving out the terms of their sentence by spending the rest of their lives in prison. If they choose to shorten that life it doesn't bother me at all.
 
No, not unless everyone is allowed assisted suicide. Prisoners should not have more rights than other people.
 
No, not unless everyone is allowed assisted suicide. Prisoners should not have more rights than other people.

This is a good point. I just sort of assumed that if it was legal for prisoners it would be legal for anyone. If it's only for prisoners and no one else, then I'm completely against it.
 
This is a good point. I just sort of assumed that if it was legal for prisoners it would be legal for anyone. If it's only for prisoners and no one else, then I'm completely against it.
I'm very much an advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia for all as well, but saying it has to be all or nothing is shortsighted, IMO. The way our system tends to work, if one segment of society did get the right, it would end up being only the first step to everybody getting said right. More often than not, anyway.
 
I am very vindictive so if they have been sentenced to life they should be kept locked up for life. The only 3 exceptions are if they are released because they are innocent (not totally impossible), second reason if they are termally ill and are being let out to die in a hospice where his/her family will be freely able to visit and the third exception is how I voted in this thread, when they are terminally ill and they do not want to die in a hospice (wait for death) then they can have euthanasia.
 
If the prisoner chooses suicide, he must also volunteer for the victim to be given the right to choose if he wants to kill him first. Shoot him, whatever. The victim would be defined as remaining family, etc., such as Ron Goldman's father.

I can relate to the level of hatred and disgust that's involved towards the perpetrator Ray but i could never turn into an executioner. For many of us the death penalty is not what brings closure or comfort, revenge killing serves no good purpose whatsoever. The life of the person that killed someone I love will never be considered an equal trade for my loved one. Some total stranger can assume that by sentencing the offender to death that things will automatically be squared up all they like. It's not and it never will be.

It won't bring closure, that has to come from within.
 
Should LWOP prisoners be allowed to choose assisted suicide?

LWOP = Life WithOut Parole (iow: no death sentence)

1) Yes. No skin on my nose, They're not going anywhere, so if they want to die, fine.
2) Yes, but after they have served X-number of years.
3) Yes, but only if they have a terminal illness.
4) No. I want to be vindictive and take away all their decision making.
5) No. They earned their sentence, make them serve their sentence.
6) Not sure. Let's discuss the pros and cons.

I say yes (#1). Doesn't matter to me if they are live or dead. I also have no problem with doctors assisting, as I am an advocate of doctor-assisted suicide/euthanasia in general, but that's another topic for another thread.

I don't think so because they are there to serve a punishment. I think death is the easy way out for some of them, and their victims sure didn't get any choices.
 
No. Murder should not be legalized.
 
I'm very much an advocate for assisted suicide/euthanasia for all as well, but saying it has to be all or nothing is shortsighted, IMO. The way our system tends to work, if one segment of society did get the right, it would end up being only the first step to everybody getting said right. More often than not, anyway.

Yeah, but why start with inmates, when there are people who have been honest citizens and are suffering?
 
Yeah, but why start with inmates, when there are people who have been honest citizens and are suffering?
You start wherever you can, which isn't always where you want. Too often holding out for absolute idealism only prolongs the overall process.
 
Hell, I am NOT sure about anything......
Ideally, there should be no prisoners...
Instead of avenging/revenging "justice", we should be preventing....ideally....we may not have the people for this....
 
This is a good point. I just sort of assumed that if it was legal for prisoners it would be legal for anyone. If it's only for prisoners and no one else, then I'm completely against it.
We are inching our way to "Soylent Green", are we not ?
Not necessarily a bad nor a good thing...
 
I'd agree with allowing voluntary euthanasia for the population in general.
 
You start wherever you can, which isn't always where you want. Too often holding out for absolute idealism only prolongs the overall process.

I'd still rather start somewhere else. There are honest citizens who have been going to court and fighting for euthanasia to be made into law, so I think those people should be able to do it instead.
 
Back
Top Bottom