Opting for euthanasia over life imprisonment

[Túrin Turambar]

Frank Van Den Bleeken, a Belgian man serving a life sentence for rape and murder, has been granted a granted a right to die under the country's euthanasia law.

I find it an interesting case for the positions on both euthanasia and capital punishment that it challenges.

Van Dan Bleeken, who has served some 30 years of his sentence, has argued that his uncontrollable violent sexual urges render him a lifelong danger to society, that he can never (and should never) be freed, and that life imprisonment without the possibility of release causes him to suffer as if he was terminally ill. A court has accepted his arguments.

Reading about this I have stumbled upon a few cases where people in Belgium have won the right to die in controversial circumstances. For example, a transsexual person following unsuccessful sex-change operations, and someone with long-term clinical depression. And now, of course, Van Dan Bleeken, a healthy (at least physically) man.

Belgium, like every other member of the EU, has no capital punishment. This means, therefore, that no-one in Belgium can be put to death for a crime it is now possible for those who receive life sentences without the possibility of parole to almost escape their sentences through dying. Death goes from a criminal penalty to a boon sought by prisoners.

On the other hand, it does seem like a civilised solution for everyone concerned. Van Dan Bleeken has accepted that he will always be a danger to society, he has no desire to live under these conditions, and his death will bring the problem of his crime and imprisonment to an early resolution for both him and his authorities.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't really see any argument against this.

Sent from my LG G3 using tapatalk

[Primula Baggins]

Assuming his petition was considered by the same standards as a non-criminal's would be (i.e., they didn't weigh his crime in the balance), I don't see any either.

[nerdanel]

One argument against this is that he has been sentenced to serve the rest of his natural life in prison for rape and murder. Certainly, he is free to commit suicide by whatever means are at his disposal. But there is a colorable argument, with a retributivist flavor, that he is not entitled to request state assistance to reduce the "suffering" of his sentence by ending his life early.

On the other hand, if this was a more widespread option (i.e., both available in other countries and available to those without uncontrollable and apparently untreatable (criminal) sexual urges), it could effectively change the capital punishment debate by placing the decision squarely in the hands of the criminal: you may choose to accept life without parole or you may select euthanasia. In an American context, I think this would address or at least mitigate certain concerns about the death penalty: no one would be subject to execution against their own wishes, particularly those who know themselves to be innocent and continue to seek vindication through the habeas process. It could also reduce racial disparities in the sentencing process for aggravated homicide (which is often statutorily defined in relatively objective terms) by eliminating jury selection between life without parole and the death penalty.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One argument against this is that he has been sentenced to serve the rest of his natural life in prison for rape and murder. Certainly, he is free to commit suicide by whatever means are at his disposal. But there is a colorable argument, with a retributivist flavor, that he is not entitled to request state assistance to reduce the "suffering" of his sentence by ending his life early.

From my perspective (and I know that others have a different perspective), once the perp is removed from the scene, retribution becomes a moot point. If he (or she) wants to be removed from the scene, and save the State from having to pay for his (or her) continued existence, I have no problem with that.

Of course if I or someone close to me was the victim of a serious violent crime, that perspective might well be different.

[Frelga]

I am conflicted on this, and can't really pinpoint why. Would the logical extension be to place the means of (painless?) suicide into the reach of everyone who is sentenced to life without parole? I suppose in practical terms, it would have to be something that cannot be used as means of murdering someone else instead.

In an American context, I think this would address or at least mitigate certain concerns about the death penalty: no one would be subject to execution against their own wishes, particularly those who know themselves to be innocent and continue to seek vindication through the habeas process.

I am not sure that we can rely on the innocent to keep fighting. Just because someone did not commit the particular crime they are condemned for, does not mean that they will keep fighting for justice. A way out via suicide may very well be tempting to an innocent but depressed convict.

I also wonder, on a tangent, if a severely depressed person can be said to choose suicide/euthanasia rationally, in medical terms.

It could also reduce racial disparities in the sentencing process for aggravated homicide (which is often statutorily defined in relatively objective terms) by eliminating jury selection between life without parole and the death penalty.

I didn't actually follow this. If you have a chance, could you elaborate?

[nerdanel]

It could also reduce racial disparities in the sentencing process for aggravated homicide (which is often statutorily defined in relatively objective terms) by eliminating jury selection between life without parole and the death penalty.

I didn't actually follow this. If you have a chance, could you elaborate?

There are, statistically speaking, racial disparities in how often black felons convicted of aggravated murder receive the death penalty relative to white felons convicted of aggravated murder, and the determination whether any particular felon receives death vs. life without parole is (with certain very slight caveats) in the hands of juries. If you remove juries' sentencing discretion, you remove these racial statistical disparities - whatever the underlying explanation for them.

[Frelga]

Thanks, nel.