Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave
that's the entire point of contention though...
you wouldn't end up with a life sentence if you didn't deny pleasure and positive experiences from others for your own gain, you wouldn't end up in that situation if you didn't repeatedly victimize people and their existences (from a Canadian perspective and not counting the 1 in a million chance of being wrongfully convicted).
so now because YOU would be on the verge of having limitations put on your existence and your opportunities for happiness it's OK to consider suicide?
consider this piece of garbage - Robert Pickton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he WILL be jailed for life. so now it's OK for him to start considering suicide and avoiding facing punishment for his action? because he won't be able to enjoy the positivity and pleasure of killing women on his farm anymore? he won't get to enjoy sick jollies of selling meat from the victims back to the community (if rumors are to be believed). boo hoo  |
yes, it is perfectly okay for him to consider suicide and he should not be denied the option of doing so; if anything he should be provided with that option, as should all life sentence inmates.
the way i see it, you can look at their sentence two ways: either 1. they have to be punished for their action and live without even the option to stop living; or 2. they need to be removed from general society so as to not cause harm to others. the former is sadism of the highest degree, while the latter is simply practicality. notice they are removed from general society anyways if they are dead, so why not let them commit suicide? not only that but if they do, no one has to support their existence with shelter, food, clothing et cetera. the only reason to support life imprisonment is the victim's cruel - although animalistic, no less understandable - desire for revenge. as if somehow locking the person up would fix what happened.