Assisted dying for paedophiles and life-prisoners

[PansyPotter84]

There’s a lot in the media at the moment about Assisted Dying and Abortion.

Here’s an idea…

Assisted dying for paedophiles and life-sentence prisoners.

Offer them, say £50,000 to the family member, victim or charity of their choice to accept a lethal injection.

Win win for society?

Discuss…

Oh please, do grow up. A childish and insensitive post which completely misses the point about the assisted dying debate.

You ghoul

🤔

Holy hell

No, of course we cannot be in a situation where we, as a state, pay criminals to voluntarily kill themselves. FFS.

It's the grapes option but would be frowned upon. The wider public may go for it though.

cheaper not grapes!

Assisted dying is not the same as voluntary euthanasia. I’ll assume you’re not a troll and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Assisted dying is a way to give dignity in the last months to people with awful diagnoses. It’s intended as a route for some people to have some control and some dignity when a lot else has been stripped off them.

What you’re proposing is a way for people to commit crimes to secure some financial security for their families - an entirely perverse incentive. There are a number of dystopian fictions which would include a similar plot point.

Assisted dying is a very specific situation where someone is terminally ill and likely to die within the next few months so not at all comparable. It being a weird straw man argument aside, thinking critically, what is the logic behind that proposal though - that it would save the state money in the long run compared with the cost of keeping them in prison and investigating other offences? Because if so then the same could be said of elderly people where the state funds their care, or disabled people, or anyone out of work.

Discuss 😄

[Quote] What you’re proposing is a way for people to commit crimes to secure some financial security for their families - an entirely perverse incentive. There are a number of dystopian fictions which would include a similar plot point.[/Quote]

Actually that’s something I hadn’t considered.

The idea was that:

1. You can’t execute people in the UK because of human rights laws and we’ve moved on from that
2. If you’re OK with euthanasia (I have no problem with it for someone who is terminally ill or suffering intolerably) then would it not be OK to offer it to someone who is either serving life or who is a paedophile on a voluntary basis. It would make the country safer and save money on keeping them locked up.
3. You would need an incentive to get someone to take up this option- that was where the suggestion for a payment to a charity or victim or family member came from.

I can see how this could lead to someone committing a crime to give their family some financial security so maybe the family member option isn’t a good idea.

It isn’t as mad an idea as you think- Belgium doesn’t have the death penalty but allows convicted murderers to choose euthanasia.

Google Geneviève Lhermitte.

Assisted dying is an entirely separate issue from the death penalty.

I support assisted dying but oppose the death penalty.

Not so much a slippery slope as complete free fall with that idea OP...

I don’t believe in giving people money in that case but I do think life sentence and indefinite sentence prisoners should be given the option of euthanasia. If I had committed some terrible crime and were in their situation I’d take the option and it would be a win win for society as the threat and expense of their upkeep would be gone.

How about a situation where we "as a state" just kill criminals who don't want to be killed ?

I get where the OP is coming from. However how does it help justice ? How does it work if someone innocent decides they'd rather use this special offer (buy one get one free ?) rather than spend 30 years in jail knowing they are innocent. Andrew Malkinson springs to mind.

I think I largely agree with you here although watching the thread with interest to read the opposing argument too

It's a slippery slope from "let them volunteer for it" to "maybe we should just force some of them to do it" and then you have reinstated the death penalty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64835051

That Belgian case involved a woman who psychiatrists determined was not of sound mind when she killed her children, who had been in a psychiatric hospital for six years.

The law in Belgium adults who are in a ‘futile medical condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated’ to request voluntary euthanasia.

Not just any old random prisoner. She could ask for and be granted it because she was ill and could not be treated, not because she was in prison.

Why this is a bit of a 'cruel teenager who thinks they are cool' argument I dont get they they would be paid and why would you think using tax payers money on this would be good? (Aside from the fact they should be just spending the rest of their lives behind bars).

Let's say we engage with the argument though, a paedophile may get 4 years in prison, why would he want to be euthanised if he can then go out and continue with his life?

I worked in Child Protection. These sorts of silly thoughts achieve nothing. 🙄

The payment seems an odd addition.

If you believe killing paedophiles and life-prisoners is morally correct, why add the payment?

Didn't Ian Brady want something like this for himself, to be allowed to die decades after his crimes? Of course, "psychopath" doesn't even begin to describe him, so we should take his ideas with a pinch of salt.

I also get where the OP is coming from. I know it's a Daily Mail view that Farage and Johnson would be proud of, but it seems perverse that we pay through the nose for the accommodation of the country's most dangerous criminals, with everything handed to them on a plate, while people who have worked an honest living all their lives struggle to make ends meet. Yes, I know that prisons are not the holiday camps which the Daily Mail makes them out to be.

And yes, what @MugsyBalonz says is true, about it being a slippery slope from "allow them" to "persuade them" to "force them".

No, but we don’t have the death penalty and no one was proposing bringing it back on those terms, so I’m not sure why it’s relevant or somehow more ethically sound to financially bribe them into it.

I support capital punishment and I think it should be brought back in this country to relieve prison crowding, and to clear out the absolute worst of criminals who have done things so heinous and/or have NO chance of being rehabilitated.

But calling it "assisted dying", which is something I also support, is completely tonedeaf.

I’m pretty sure many surviving victims would recoil at the thought of a ‘death payment’ from their attacker. 🤢