It's the prisoners who would be driving other prisoners to suicide. If assisted suicide were permitted in prisons, driving other prisoners to it would be a hobby of many of the prisoners. But probably the biggest problem with allowing assisted suicide in prisons is that the prisoners aren't really free to choose. To be free to choose, you have to be free.

Simply by not being free, there is already pressure toward suicide. Prisons have gone to great effort to remove to the greatest extent possible the means by which a prisoner might take their own life, simply because prison does induce suicidal tendencies among so many. I am pretty certain that you would be looking for a long time to find a prisoner who is permitted to have a length of rope in his prison cell as a personal possession. That is a means of suicide, and they are likely to use it.

And why would we give prisoners who are not free to make their own choices a choice that we deny to everyone else? If an incarcerated person has a right to choose suicide, then surely people who are free have the same right. If we are going to assist prisoners with suicide, then surely anyone else has a right to be assisted with suicide. It would make no sense to give prisoners the right to choose something that free people can't choose.

(March 15, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Amarok Wrote: 1. The family has no right to revenge . They should however be compensated by the state for their loses . 

Why?

(March 16, 2019 at 10:31 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(March 15, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Amarok Wrote: 1. The family has no right to revenge . They should however be compensated by the state for their loses . 

Why?

Because revenge is a vice not a virtue and life cannot pay for life . However caring for the victims and help ease their burden is a virtue .

(March 16, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Amarok Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 10:31 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Why?

Because revenge is a vice not a virtue and life cannot pay for life . However caring for the victims and help ease their burden is a virtue .

No, why should the state compensate the victims?

Against it. It's barbaric and hypocritical, and it does nothing to deter crime or increase the safety of citizens.

(March 16, 2019 at 6:10 am)Yonadav Wrote: It's the prisoners who would be driving other prisoners to suicide. If assisted suicide were permitted in prisons, driving other prisoners to it would be a hobby of many of the prisoners. But probably the biggest problem with allowing assisted suicide in prisons is that the prisoners aren't really free to choose. To be free to choose, you have to be free.

Simply by not being free, there is already pressure toward suicide. Prisons have gone to great effort to remove to the greatest extent possible the means by which a prisoner might take their own life, simply because prison does induce suicidal tendencies among so many. I am pretty certain that you would be looking for a long time to find a prisoner who is permitted to have a length of rope in his prison cell as a personal possession. That is a means of suicide, and they are likely to use it.

And why would we give prisoners who are not free to make their own choices a choice that we deny to everyone else? If an incarcerated person has a right to choose suicide, then surely people who are free have the same right.  If we are going to assist prisoners with suicide, then surely anyone else has a right to be assisted with suicide. It would make no sense to give prisoners the right to choose something that free people can't choose.

1. So your alternative seems to let them suffer and again this isn't my experience in the penal system. 

2. A choice is still a choice within limitation of freedom

3.This doesn't follow the fact we give a choice to prisoners does not mean we must give it to the general public 

4. I'm not opposed to general assisted suicide.

(March 16, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Against it. It's barbaric and hypocritical, and it does nothing to deter crime or increase the safety of citizens.

Are you being dense? You aren't answering my question. No more platitudes, please.

(March 16, 2019 at 4:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Amarok Wrote: Because revenge is a vice not a virtue and life cannot pay for life . However caring for the victims and help ease their burden is a virtue .

No, why should the state compensate the victims?

1. Well we were willing to kill someone for them seems a competitively small burden to help them put their lives back together 

2. We compensate other losses . Why not murder ?

3. It seems a compassionate thing to do as a society to help ease some of the financial burden or emotional burden 

4. Thou I say state I'm not against another method of compensation .

---

(March 16, 2019 at 4:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Against it. It's barbaric and hypocritical, and it does nothing to deter crime or increase the safety of citizens.

Are you being dense? You aren't answering my question. No more platitudes, please.

Those are not  platitudes it's a fact 

1. It's barbaric as it argues some form of blood sacrifice nonsense 

2.It's hypocritical due to the fact it justifies bloodshed as a means of dealing slights 

3.It's ineffective as a deterrent

(March 16, 2019 at 4:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 4:30 pm)Mermaid Wrote: Against it. It's barbaric and hypocritical, and it does nothing to deter crime or increase the safety of citizens.

Are you being dense? You aren't answering my question. No more platitudes, please.

What the hell?

(March 16, 2019 at 4:49 pm)Mermaid Wrote:

(March 16, 2019 at 4:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Are you being dense? You aren't answering my question. No more platitudes, please.

What the hell?

I see no reason why the state should compensate the victims.