I think sme peope are better off dead, my problem is when they kill the wrong person. If you go to jail and are later found to be innocent you can claim compensation and damages, if you are dead that's it.

I'm opposed to it for any reason.

I have no problem with using deadly force to prevent a person from killing others. In fact, I think there is a moral obligation to do that. But once a person has committed heinous acts, what good is accomplished by stooping to their level and killing them? Better to take the high road and simply remove them from society so they can do no further harm.

I think it is important that society as a whole rise above base emotions and do the thing we intellectually know is right. In fact, that is how we have gotten to where we are now. We still have a way to go but progress is only made when we master our basic emotions and act on our intellect. That is what sets us apart from base animals. Killing another in mindless revenge is not an enlightened act. It is an anchor that only serves to chain us to our savage roots.

"I think it is important that society as a whole rise above base emotions and do the thing we intellectually know is right"

I agree. Unfortunately, there are a great many people in my society who believe "an eye for an eye is just" . ---Still part of Sharia law. Plus of course the literalist Christians, who seem inordinately fond of some of the harsher aspects of the Torah.

In my opinion, justice might be served far more often if Abrahamic morality was ignored. Instead being based on the principles of some of the Greek philosophers, such as the Stoics or indeed their rivals, Epicureans.

However, I have a few lawyer friends, one is a barrister for the Crown . ( like a US ADA) Without exception all of my lawyer friends have confirmed what I have privately believed for many years. No democratic country has a 'justice system'. We all have a 'legal system', which is not the same thing.

From time-to-time justice is served. However, that is due to happy accident rather than intent.


(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BC. While Stoic physics are largely drawn from the teachings of the philosopher Heraclitus, they are heavily influenced by certain teachings of Socrates. Stoicism is predominantly a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teachings, as social beings, the path to happiness for humans is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or fear of pain, by using one's mind to understand the world and to do one's part in nature's plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

(March 15, 2019 at 7:15 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I'm opposed to it for any reason.

I have no problem with using deadly force to prevent a person from killing others. In fact, I think there is a moral obligation to do that. But once a person has committed heinous acts, what good is accomplished by stooping to their level and killing them? Better to take the high road and simply remove them from society so they can do no further harm.

I think it is important that society as a whole rise above base emotions and do the thing we intellectually know is right. In fact, that is how we have gotten to where we are now. We still have a way to go but progress is only made when we master our basic emotions and act on our intellect. That is what sets us apart from base animals. Killing another in mindless revenge is not an enlightened act. It is an anchor that only serves to chain us to our savage roots.

In Indiana a family member can "throw the switch". One of my friends was eligible. But he couldn't do it. He asked me. I volunteered as stand in. His twin girls were pretty cool. They never got to start the first grade.

My position on this is well documented so I will just do bullet points 

1. The family has no right to revenge . They should however be compensated by the state for their loses . 

2. Mandatory 20 years without parole and constant monitoring and restrictions including automatically being assigned a region of habitation and occupation  they are forbidden to leave for the next 40 years. Failure to comply will result in a life sentence without  parole.

3. If prisoners find the prospect unbearable or believe themselves deserving of death they made request assisted suicide

(March 15, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Amarok Wrote: 3. If prisoners find the prospect unbearable or believe themselves deserving of death they made request assisted suicide

I agree with this 100% in principle but I can't see it working in practice. Prisons would actively encourage suicide by abusing prisoners.

(March 15, 2019 at 9:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Amarok Wrote: 3. If prisoners find the prospect unbearable or believe themselves deserving of death they made request assisted suicide

I agree with this 100% in principle but I can't see it working in practice. Prisons would actively encourage suicide by abusing prisoners.

I'm not following your reasoning on this

(March 15, 2019 at 9:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Amarok Wrote: 3. If prisoners find the prospect unbearable or believe themselves deserving of death they made request assisted suicide

I agree with this 100% in principle but I can't see it working in practice. Prisons would actively encourage suicide by abusing prisoners.

Assisted suicide is a can of worms.

Pretty sure  there would be some ethical objections to the scenario you describe., at least in Oz. So far, my country is not sufficiently mature to allow the assisted suicide of the pain-ridden, terminally ill. No sure how they would respond to the terminally evil.

I'd also argue that there is hope for the person so guilt ridden as to believe he /she is undeserving of life. My perception is that truly evil people rarely see themselves as evil.

(March 15, 2019 at 10:45 pm)Amarok Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 9:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I agree with this 100% in principle but I can't see it working in practice. Prisons would actively encourage suicide by abusing prisoners.

I'm not following your reasoning on this

It's just human nature.

What kind of person chooses to work as a prison guard? Not a social progressive. Such a person would be unlikely to pursue such a career path. A prison guard is likely to be a social conservative. On top of this, such a person is constantly exposed to the dregs of humanity. Knowing these prisoners had easy access to an, "off switch", don't you see that they would have a temptation to encourage prisoners to avail themselves to this option? It would certainly make their job easier.

I'm about as socially liberal as they come and I can tell you if that if I were a prison guard, I would be highly tempted to encourage violent prisoners to select this option. It's certainly an option I would select if I were in their place.

Easy, assisted suicide might seem attractive on the surface but if you think about it closely, it is unethical. The only way it would be ethical is if the guards were completely unemotional robots that had no emotional investment in whether a prisoner chose suicide or not.

(March 15, 2019 at 10:49 pm)fredd bear Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 9:52 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: I agree with this 100% in principle but I can't see it working in practice. Prisons would actively encourage suicide by abusing prisoners.

Assisted suicide is a can of worms.

Pretty sure  there would be some ethical objections to the scenario you describe., at least in Oz. So far, my country is not sufficiently mature to allow the assisted suicide of the pain-ridden, terminally ill. No sure how they would respond to the terminally evil.

I'd also argue that there is hope for the person so guilt ridden as to believe he /she is undeserving of life. My perception is that truly evil people rarely see themselves as evil.

1. I'm not sure how mature country needs to be to allow people to choose death . Plus I was more talking about the suffering of a life sentence .

2. Well if they don't see themselves as evil then they will simply live out their sentence unless the find that unbearable thus the first option .

---

(March 16, 2019 at 1:10 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 10:45 pm)Amarok Wrote: I'm not following your reasoning on this

It's just human nature.

What kind of person chooses to work as a prison guard? Not a social progressive. Such a person would be unlikely to pursue such a career path. A prison guard is likely to be a social conservative. On top of this, such a person is constantly exposed to the dregs of humanity. Knowing these prisoners had easy access to an, "off switch", don't you see that they would have a temptation to encourage prisoners to avail themselves to this option? It would certainly make their job easier.

I'm about as socially liberal as they come and I can tell you if that if I were a prison guard, I would be highly tempted to encourage violent prisoners to select this option. It's certainly an option I would select if I were in their place.

Easy, assisted suicide might seem attractive on the surface but if you think about it closely, it is unethical. The only way it would be ethical is if the guards were completely unemotional robots that had no emotional investment in whether a prisoner chose suicide or not.

1. That's not my experience working in the penal system . Most of the guards are the opposite your description . 

2. I think you would change your mind if you did the job 


3. Therefore I can't agree with your conclusion