Moors murderer dies aged 79 - Should prisoners be allowed to kill themselves?

Moors Murderer Ian Brady has finally died aged 79 after 51 years in prison/secure hospitals. Good riddance. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39929538

Brady was never to be released from prison and for good reasons - and he knew that and accepted that. He's wanted to die since 1999 and has tried to kill himself repeatedly by going on hunger strike but he has until today been kept alive by a feeding tube. So for 18 years at great expense to the state this piece of human excrement has been kept alive against his wishes. To be fair if he was a regular prisoner he could have gone on hunger strike and starved himself to death, but because he's considered mentally ill (for being a dangerous psychopath) he was denied that choice.

If we had the death penalty there is little doubt that Brady deserved it. We don't have it which I agree with because there is the unforgivable risk that an innocent could be killed. Brady was no innocent and he wanted to die. If the state can't kill him, we should have let him finish the job himself. If he's so desperate to die and is sentenced to life in prison then I fail to see why he should even need to go through the agony of starving himself. If he so wants it give him a cyanide capsule or whatever and let him off himself and save us the job of doing so.

Gets my vote, I don't have a problem with prisoners offing themselves.

No. Largely for the same reasons they should not be killed. If society's attitudes towards physician assisted suicide changes significantly this discussion may become more complex but even then, in the case of a person with a severe psychiatric illness, it would be unethical (by the standards of ethics adhered to by most civilized western societies) to let or help them die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No. Largely for the same reasons they should not be killed. If society's attitudes towards physician assisted suicide changes significantly this discussion may become more complex but even then, in the case of a person with a severe psychiatric illness, it would be unethical (by the standards of ethics adhered to by most civilized western societies) to let or help them die.

---

I'm generally not opposed to physician assisted suicide outside of the concern that it will be used inappropriately. I also see little point - if you really want to kill yourself there are *plenty* of ways to do it with near 100% success rate. Jail cells (for obvious reasons) are a lot harder to find the means to off yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No. Largely for the same reasons they should not be killed. If society's attitudes towards physician assisted suicide changes significantly this discussion may become more complex but even then, in the case of a person with a severe psychiatric illness, it would be unethical (by the standards of ethics adhered to by most civilized western societies) to let or help them die.

---

Well I suppose your views on euthanasia may shape your views on this, but I believe in euthanasia so am being consistent here.

What's the time limit before an inmate can decide to off himself? I ask cause you mention being against the death penalty because of innocent people the system fucked over. We have far to many cases of innocent people getting fucked for decades while fighting their conviction, before during and after their name is cleared. Suicide would seem like a sweet release from such a system and would end up promoting higher levels of inmate abuse to protect the state from it's "mistakes".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Well I suppose your views on euthanasia may shape your views on this, but I believe in euthanasia so am being consistent here.

---

It's perfectly consistent to support assisted suicide in general while objecting to it in the case of people who are not believed to be capable of making a well-informed and fully rational decision eg. due to psychiatric illness, youth etc. Being of sound mind is typically considered to be a prerequisite for giving informed consent. What is not consistent is supporting the killing--whether actively or passively--of prisoners suffering from psychiatric illnesses or just subjected to constant and severe psychological pressure, while simultaneously objecting to capital punishment on the grounds that it may lead to the death of innocent people. Do you believe that an innocent prisoner can't be driven to the point of suicidality by his terrible and unjust circumstances?

I'm a bit split here. I'm not opposed to euthanasia with proper checks, in case of suffering that cannot be ended in other ways. So there's two concerns here: first of all if an inmate was suffering due to, say, abuse from prisoners, that could be ended or reduced in other ways. Second, if the reason he wants to end it is that there is no possibility of getting out, that's the point of the sentencing so it seems weird to accept that as a valid reason to want to end your life. And considering that inmates are a lot more expensive than dead ones there's all kinds of wrong incentives to allow it to happen and it's open to abuse.

I don't understand your second point. The purpose of keeping him imprisoned is to keep him away from society for the rest of his life. Him ending that life prematurely completes that sentence in full.

To end risks of abuse I would propose the same safeguard I've always backed for euthanasia - the person who wishes to end their life should say in private to a psychiatrist that they wish to end their life, then a month later repeat that statement to a second and different psychiatrist. If the person has not changed their mind, let them do what they wish.

That doesn't do anything to end abuse. That actually encourges the state and those acting for the state to maintain the abuse, which would include but not limited to legal, mental, physical, and financial for those that are innocent.

I fail to see how it encourages abuse, if two independent psychiatrists can't tell that there is foul play involved.

... That makes no sense whatsoever unless you believe psychiatrists are psychics.

All a prisoner has to do is say that he wants to die, for whatever reason. What are the psychiatrists going to do, overrule their decision? On what grounds, unless you've now decided that psychiatric problems can indeed justify denying assisted suicide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I fail to see how it encourages abuse, if two independent psychiatrists can't tell that there is foul play involved.

---

I even tried to spell it out cause I figured you were only able to comprehend the physical part of the abuse. What type of outlook on life would an inmate have if the state did everything they could to delay their release after DNA tests proved they were innocent? What type of life would someone expect to have if they knew that after 31 years in jail for a wrongful conviction all they were going to get to restart their life was $75? If you were given any compensation at all... Of course the physical abuse is still a concern, imagine life in a place like Homan Square. And if something like that can exist, there is no way a person can be considered making a sane life or death decision while in the care of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

... That makes no sense whatsoever unless you believe psychiatrists are psychics.

All a prisoner has to do is say that he wants to die, for whatever reason. What are the psychiatrists going to do, overrule their decision? On what grounds, unless you've now decided that psychiatric problems can indeed justify denying assisted suicide?

---

I believe if the psychiatrist believes the individual is being coerced and not speaking through own free will then yes overrule the decision.

I don't believe psychopaths are being coerced to be psychopaths.

Honestly, whatever Brady wanted I'd be pretty cool with us doing the exact opposite of that.

I get that. The only reason I could think of to keep Brady alive was to find out where Keith Bennett was buried. The monster took that to his grave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Honestly, whatever Brady wanted I'd be pretty cool with us doing the exact opposite of that.

---

Yeah but wasting money just to spite someone? Should of Offed him and moved on.

The discussion is kind of ridiculous, as the matter of the fact is that the man was not deemed to make reasoned decisions to start with. If you can't make a reasoned decision, you can't assume someone can choose to die. Letting him die without legally being capable of choosing to do so would qualify as manslaughter to say the least if he were in the custody of the state.

RandBlade has tried to force that issue several times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Yeah but wasting money just to spite someone? Should of Offed him and moved on.

---

Honest question I don't know the answer in America would an evil murderer who tortured to death young children be spared the death penalty because he was a psychopath?

No.

Not even if he was white.

That's what I would have thought. So I fail to see why being a psychopath means we can't let him off himself here. If we had the death penalty there can be little doubt we'd have used it here quite justifiably.

The question isn't if he's a psychopath but if that fact impedes his reasoning.

Everyone has things that affects their reasoning.

He tried side stepping it, even ignoring it, but it eventually showed itself. Rand's limited understanding of mental health.

It is not that I don't understand it is that I just don't care.

Either you don't understand or you're in favor of arbitrary and deeply unethical views on assisted suicide. Regardless, your position on this matter is inconsistent and your justifications nonsensical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Honest question I don't know the answer in America would an evil murderer who tortured to death young children be spared the death penalty because he was a psychopath?

---

"Psychopath" is not a DSM-defined illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Either you don't understand or you're in favor of arbitrary and deeply unethical views on assisted suicide. Regardless, your position on this matter is inconsistent and your justifications nonsensical.

---

My position on this is that Brady didn't deserve to be kept alive and if we can't kill him we shouldn't stop him from doing us a favour. How is that inconsistent?

If we had the death penalty I'd have no qualms whatsoever executing that monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

"Psychopath" is not a DSM-defined illness.

---

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Interesting.

---

You see, it goes back to the things you don't care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The question isn't if he's a psychopath but if that fact impedes his reasoning.

---

"Psychopath" is not a clinical diagnosis. Those things which are clinical diagnoses, which contribute to the vague and irregular set of behaviors and attitudes you refer to when you say "psychopath" may or may not be grounds for insanity pleas which could potentially ward off a death penalty. It depends on the individual context, the degree and method of any relevant mental impairment.