[Article] Why I would rather live in a time where CTB was actually criminalized

[TAW122]

This is perhaps an unusual take on this matter Now before you jump to conclusions or make assumptions on my stance, please hear me out first. Throughout history and even as far back as less than a century ago, CTB was deemed a criminal act and in some cases, punishable by death even. I personally would rather have preferred that time period than what we have today. My reasoning and stance goes in two parts: One based on logic and consistency (as someone who is by default wired to more/less accept and be in harmony with logical consistency as much as possible), and the other one based on practicality (at least from the legal standpoint).

Part I: Logical consistency
I believe that if one were to be punished for something that is wrong then (not to say that all laws were just, because throughout history unjust and unconstitutional laws have been struck down!) that would only make logical sense. Like for instance, if one was barred from having certain drugs and they were punished because a law forbade them for possessing a certain substance, then yes, that would be consistent with the logic of "you broke a rule/law/regulation, and now suffered a consequence/punishment" kind of logic.

Part II: Practicality with respect to legality
In some parts of the world and especially less than a century (or even further back) ago, CTB was punishable by death (ironic indeed), and from a practical standpoint, that would be the lesser of many evils because:

1. That would allow someone to at least still have agency to prove their innocence (because in most legal systems, at least in the West, you are presumably innocent until proven guilty, hence due process).

2. In such a system, should one be found guilty (and still wish to die) they would allow at least a way to escape suffering (presuming the method was reliable and as painless as possible).

Existentialgoof once said that (quoted his post below as well as bolded/colored the most important parts to my article.)

Suicidal person here. Whilst I agree that it is wrong to accuse a suicidal person of being selfish, that's certainly far from the most harmful meme/idea being circulated about suicidal people in the current climate.

Prior to the passage of the 1961 Suicide Act in England & Wales, suicide was a criminal offence, and this was justifiable by viewing suicide as an immoral act. Nowadays, suicide is no longer criminalised. This has gone hand in hand with a change in the way that suicide is perceived. It is now more commonly perceived not as an immoral act, but as an act of someone who lacks any genuine agency of their own. In my opinion, this is a far more insidious, far more harmful, and far more dystopian way of thinking about suicide. Now, instead of being a moral agent who has to answer for one's moral wickedness; a suicidal person is deemed to be a helpless moral dependent on the state, who needs the government to act in their best interests by preventing them from being able to commit suicide.

Personally, I would much rather stand accused of selfishness (and to some extent, that accusation may be warranted); than be summarily relegated to the legal and moral status of a small child. In the former case, as someone who is recognised to be a moral agent, I at least have the opportunity to speak out against my accusers, against the stigma of selfishness and can explain my perspective and mount a case for why I deserve the legal right to die by suicide.

In the latter case, I am effectively denied any opportunity to speak out against suicide prevention schemes which seek to take away my liberty; because the stigma that suicidal people lack any meaningful agency is all encompassing, and acts in a way that discredits me as someone without any genuine insight worth being heard, before I have the chance to speak in my own defence.

On the surface, treating suicidal people as mentally ill people who need help seems like a more compassionate framing of the issue. But in practice, it is far more cruel, far more harmful and far more degrading, because it is used to justify taking our own fate out of our hands and refusing to recognise our agency or the validity of our insights.

I agree with EG on why it was better to be framed guilty of a supposed crime (at least when CTB was criminalized, before it was taken off the criminal code), since that would allow a person to go through the legal system, have their civil rights and a chance to demonstrate, defend, or at least some due process over the charge, versus being immediately and automatically deemed incapable of having any ability to defend oneself (a helpless moral agent who is unable to act in one's self-interest or defend oneself).

Now, I hear that there are people who will make an counterargument stating that "what about people who change their minds (after being caught), but (under that regime or time period in which CTB was punishable by death) would still get put to death", I could see that being a downside, but for most people who are determined to CTB, it would just finish the job. Furthermore, as an additional point, if CTB was still treated as a crime (like it was a half century (or longer) ago), then it gives way for a person to have the ability to defend one's innocence and are afforded the legal protections that come with the accused (due process, the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, etc.).

I know that there will be people who have contrary thoughts, but these are just my two cents and feel free to discussion why you agree or not as well as point out any other perspectives that I may have missed.

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

If they wanted to deter suicide, the punishment should have been torture. They weren't very smart back then, were they?

 

[Sluggish_Slump]

True, getting framed as criminals gives us agency over own decisions and grounds to defend them. Deeming suicide as a product of irrational thinking takes our agency away.

 

[new2blue]

Say I was suddenly "fixed". All my suffering resolved to the same bearable standard that others enjoy (or don't). Being through a lifetime of mental health issues, to the point it made me consider CTB, my opinion has forever been changed. I think to disallow agency from "mentally ill" people is barbaric. Given I have studied psychology, I know very well that many people maintain insight and the ability to think logically even with servere conditions. I can see reason in making it a matter of the law to perhaps give a one-two year timeframe in which a person willingly undergoes therapy/medication and at the end can opt in to assisted suicide if that were still their wish (peacefully, with medical supervision).

In saying that, not every country has the resources to facilitate this. Therapy and meds cost money. This program would be bashed by the media and pro life organisations. I can not see how it would work with the current stigma.

Edit: Plus, how can therapy fix homelessness or having an abusive family, or poor physical health that results in pain or emotional turmoil. The therapy/med suggestion is to satisfy the population that all due consideration was given to help that person "get better" before offering a peaceful end.

 

[Adûnâi]

A high-IQ post! Just another case of the terminal stage of the Western civilisation being more insidious than burning at the stake (although that one too was "for his own good").

And selfishness is a perfectly fine description of suicide motivation - after all, it stems from the desire to be free, hence endangering the community at large which might require your pair of hands for labour... Unless one would make the case that he presents a danger to his fellows _by remaining alive_ - and that is amusing.

 

[TAW122]

If they wanted to deter suicide, the punishment should have been torture. They weren't very smart back then, were they?

Yeah, hence it is ironic how they would deem death as a "punishment" for attempting to CTB (and failing). To me, I still see it as them finishing the job (assuming they didn't just torture the convict).

True, getting framed as criminals gives us agency over own decisions and grounds to defend them. Deeming suicide as a product of irrational thinking takes our agency away.

Yes, especially in a civilized society with a modern legal system, one has the right to a lawyer, due process, and are afforded many civil rights, including the 8th amendment (speaking in terms of the US and most other Western nations), which is free from cruel and unusual punishment (this encompasses free from being 'tortured'). I would much rather such a system than to have an insidious and rather nefarious label which like you said, strips one of one's agency and credibility. It made sense why some people would rather be suspected of legal wrongs than to be suspected or labelled as "crazy".

Say I was suddenly "fixed". All my suffering resolved to the same bearable standard that others enjoy (or don't). Being through a lifetime of mental health issues, to the point it made me consider CTB, my opinion has forever been changed. I think to disallow agency from "mentally ill" people is barbaric. Given I have studied psychology, I know very well that many people maintain insight and the ability to think logically even with servere conditions. I can see reason in making it a matter of the law to perhaps give a one-two year timeframe in which a person willingly undergoes therapy/medication and at the end can opt in to assisted suicide if that were still their wish (peacefully, with medical supervision).

In saying that, not every country has the resources to facilitate this. Therapy and meds cost money. This program would be bashed by the media and pro life organisations. I can not see how it would work with the current stigma.

Edit: Plus, how can therapy fix homelessness or having an abusive family, or poor physical health that results in pain or emotional turmoil. The therapy/med suggestion is to satisfy the population that all due consideration was given to help that person "get better" before offering a peaceful end.

For the last paragraph, I agree and yes, that would definitely be a good compromise such that one is able to have a chance to improve their situation before going through. It would certainly stop impulsive CTBs and allow people to have mercy at the end (even if it may be temporarily delayed). However, pro-lifers are cruel and barbaric so they wouldn't even accept a reasonable concession, but rather have someone indefinitely trapped in life and waiting for some 'miracle' or sudden boon to happen (which in quite a few cases may be waiting indefinitely/forever), and when that fails they arrogantly claim (and lie to themselves) that it was appropriate to keep the person suffering and how unfortunate it was that said person never found peace or suffered much longer than they should. But I digress...

A high-IQ post! Just another case of the terminal stage of the Western civilisation being more insidious than burning at the stake (although that one too was "for his own good").

And selfishness is a perfectly fine description of suicide motivation - after all, it stems from the desire to be free, hence endangering the community at large which might require your pair of hands for labour... Unless one would make the case that he presents a danger to his fellows _by remaining alive_ - and that is amusing.

Thanks for your support and I figured that this was something that was on my mind from time to time and I just got around to posting it recently. It is indeed better to have been labelled as a suspect than to have the loss of agency and assuming one isn't tortured (like the middle ages time), then one has many more tools and checks and balances to defend oneself or at least make a case. Plus, the legal protections in a criminal justice system would apply too (the amendments) and that isn't necessarily afforded to those labelled or deemed "unsound of mind" or mentally ill.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

I've often wondered what would happen, from a legal perspective, if more people deliberately broke the law and took part in assisted suicides - say for terminally ill people.

Would they start locking these people up en masse? It would create a very difficult situation in society, and possibly lead to the whole legal framework collapsing. I think we possibly need something big and dramatic like this, to see significant changes.

 

[Slow_Farewell]

An interesting take.. would actually save a lot of the time money and prep if I was to just take the rap and didnt have to wait long to be executed.

 

[TAW122]

I've often wondered what would happen, from a legal perspective, if more people deliberately broke the law and took part in assisted suicides - say for terminally ill people.

Would they start locking these people up en masse? It would create a very difficult situation in society, and possibly lead to the whole legal framework collapsing. I think we possibly need something big and dramatic like this, to see significant changes.

I think society collapsing and legal framework (as we know it now) may be negatively impacted, yes. However, if it does lead to people creating a better system, that overall it is still a net positive from what we have in today's modern world.

An interesting take.. would actually save a lot of the time money and prep if I was to just take the rap and didnt have to wait long to be executed.

That may be true, and also it depends on the execution method, how effective it was, whether it was painful or not.