TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,804
Disclaimer/Notice: I am not advocating for violence or even suggesting this as a method, but merely sharing a story between I and someone else, and illustrating how impractical or bad this method is.
Almost 10 years ago, while I was a student at university, I went through rough patches and life sucked badly. During that time, I managed to build rapport and treated a well-meaning professor as a confidant. He was a ethics/philosophy professor and he thought similarly to me, empathized with my plight.
Anyways, thought theory crafting and discussion, I entertained the idea of death via the state (death penalty and executions for heinous crimes). Through a long discussion, the idea of someone committing a serious enough crime to get the death penalty is a bad idea because for one, the suspect would be detained and then put in jail without bond while awaiting trial.
Next, when the defendant is taken to trial before a judge and jury, and even then (assuming in a state that allows the death penalty or federal crimes that carry the death penalty) there is a competency hearing in which the defendant will be tested for sanity (assume they are competent to stand trial and not legally insane), and then when found guilty, there is a chance of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
At the penalty/sentencing phase before a judge or panel of jurors, in most situations a jury has to vote UNANIMOUSLY in order for the death penalty to even be handed down. Assuming that the defendant is handed the death penalty (which means the defendant is then a convict), the next thing is the long wait in prison before the execution date. During this time (usually many years, over a decade since the sentencing), a convict is given many appeals before they are given the death penalty.
While in In prison, it would be many years before the convict while sitting and waiting for the inevitable, then once all appeals are exhausted, no new trial or evidence is given, then the convict will be executed. If there is anything that interrupts it such as a pardon (extremely unlikely) or new evidence or what not, then it is rescheduled or delayed.
Tl;dr - suicide via death penalty isn't reliable, is unethical, costly, and that is even assuming that one obtains the death penalty for their crimes. I do NOT condone violence against others, NOR breaking laws of the country or state in which one resides in. It does much more harm to innocents and others that it is not viable at all, morally, socially, economically, nor logically.
Almost 10 years ago, while I was a student at university, I went through rough patches and life sucked badly. During that time, I managed to build rapport and treated a well-meaning professor as a confidant. He was a ethics/philosophy professor and he thought similarly to me, empathized with my plight.
Anyways, thought theory crafting and discussion, I entertained the idea of death via the state (death penalty and executions for heinous crimes). Through a long discussion, the idea of someone committing a serious enough crime to get the death penalty is a bad idea because for one, the suspect would be detained and then put in jail without bond while awaiting trial.
Next, when the defendant is taken to trial before a judge and jury, and even then (assuming in a state that allows the death penalty or federal crimes that carry the death penalty) there is a competency hearing in which the defendant will be tested for sanity (assume they are competent to stand trial and not legally insane), and then when found guilty, there is a chance of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
At the penalty/sentencing phase before a judge or panel of jurors, in most situations a jury has to vote UNANIMOUSLY in order for the death penalty to even be handed down. Assuming that the defendant is handed the death penalty (which means the defendant is then a convict), the next thing is the long wait in prison before the execution date. During this time (usually many years, over a decade since the sentencing), a convict is given many appeals before they are given the death penalty.
While in In prison, it would be many years before the convict while sitting and waiting for the inevitable, then once all appeals are exhausted, no new trial or evidence is given, then the convict will be executed. If there is anything that interrupts it such as a pardon (extremely unlikely) or new evidence or what not, then it is rescheduled or delayed.
Tl;dr - suicide via death penalty isn't reliable, is unethical, costly, and that is even assuming that one obtains the death penalty for their crimes. I do NOT condone violence against others, NOR breaking laws of the country or state in which one resides in. It does much more harm to innocents and others that it is not viable at all, morally, socially, economically, nor logically.
Last edited:
