How does committing suicide avoid justice?

[DRBUZZ0]

Hermann Göring was one of Hitler's top officials and if anybody deserved the death penalty it was him. He was convicted and sentenced at Nuremberg to death. Although the tribunal has been criticized for letting some off the hook, Goring was not one of them.

But before he could be hanged, he swallowed a capsule of cyanide and died gasping and choking as the chemical blocked his blood's ability to carry oxygen. (he probably got the capsule from a guard who he had befriended but it remains a historical mystery)

Afterward, much was said about he had "won" in the end or escaped justice. Escaped justice? The man is dead. He didn't "win" he's dead. Now, there may be some symbolic value of having the control of his end, but that seems like a small consolation. There's little dignified about a death by cyanide. It seems a properly done hanging would be perferable pain-wise.

But in any case, it's not much. The man didn't get away. He didn't flea to argentina and live out his life. He didn't see the rise of the thousand year reich or live to play with his grandchildren.... nope...

This is often brought up even moreso for murders or other criminals who commit suicide before they go to trial, or before the sentencing. "He escaped justice" or "I'm angry he wasn't held accountable" or "He took the cowardly way out."

Excuse me?

The person has imposed their own execution, in effect. They've saved the cost of a trial, the drama of the courtroom. There's not going to be any drawn out appeals or interviews from the prison cell on 60 minutes in a few years. There won't be a parole hearing every two years. There won't be a sentence to death that causes protestors to the death penelty to come out in front of the prison. No housing costs. No expensive medical care when they're old.

So they are not officially convicted on paper? Does that matter that much? They are dead!

What they have just done, in essence, is:

A) Effectively admitted guilt, if they had not already
B) Imposed the death penalty on themselves.
C) Bypassed all the legal routines and taken the express route
D) Made whether or not the death penalty is ethically justified or excessive or whatever a moot point, by taking it upon themselves to carry it out, thus removing the responsibility from the institution and any questions of it.


I suppose I can see a couple of things: If there is something unsolved like someone wants to know where a body was burried or something, then that might be something to be upset about, but a trial probably would not tell that anyway. If the person lived it would most likely be an excercise in frustration, waiting for years for them to come clean and admit what happened.

Or perhaps missing the opportunity to confront the person or have them fess up to the crime or wittiness the damage they caused. But in general, it's pretty rare for an apology or admission or something like that to actually happen in a case with a defiant individual like that. Again, it would probably cause more frustration at it never happening. Now they are dead. That's pretty much one-sided loosing for them.


And I can also understand the whole additude of "Death is not the worst punishment. This person should suffer for decades in prison." However, generally death is considered the supreme punishment and if nothing else: it's still defiantly not an optimal outcome for the accused. Many victims families want the person to die anyways.


And of course, this is not really an issue if the person is already facing the death penalty, as it's really just a manner of death issue and a paperwork thing. Hardly amounts to much.


I don't see how they "win" or "have the last laugh" or anything of the sort. The case is usually closed by this, however there may be the small symbolic value of their guilt not being considered technically established in the court record. But it's not like they can enjoy that. They aren't around anymore...

Hence: I really don't understand this sentiment.

[JoeEllison]

Since killing someone isn't "justice" either, I don't see why it should matter as long as they wind up dead.

[Checkmite]

I've never understood this either. I recall a similar incident where an inmate on death row was gravely ill and likely to die before his day of execution, and some somebody or other was yapping about how the prison system should make the effort to keep him alive so he could "serve his sentence". Hello?

[DRBUZZ0]

Since killing someone isn't "justice" either, I don't see why it should matter as long as they wind up dead.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the death penalty, and I don't know that someone like Goering or Harold Shipman, both of whom committed suicide, could ever have an end to their life that reflects "justice" because there's no way of bringing back their victims or truly quantifying the horrors they were responsible for.

Generally, my biggest concern with the death penalty is that it can be overused or the possibility of an innocent person being executed. As far as I am concerned, someone who's actions are both extreme and their guilt is not in question and I'd like out of society. Gone. I have no particular sympathy for how they are stored or disposed of...

But in any case. Whether or not you consider death, prison, hard labor, or whatever to be the approperate treatment...

I do not see hanging from your cell's light fixture by your own underwear as "escaping" anything or "having the last laugh" or in any way "Winning" or "evading justice."


Actually, it does a pretty good job of getting the whole legal affair over with in short order..

[bruto]

Clearly the result is the same either way, but also clearly it seems different to some people on both sides of the bars. Aside from the fact that one can kill oneself without ever acknowledging guilt or expressing remorse, but simply to take some control of an event which is inevitable, there is also a strong religious element in the way capital punishment is carried out, at least here in the US. People often say that the idea is to get rid of incorrigible bad guys, but it really isn't just that. The element of punishment is more important than that of elimination. In the bizarre world of capital punishment, the person must be aware of the punishment, and feel its severity for it to be meaningful. Suicide is discouraged, and a convict who is or becomes incompetent or too insane to comprehend the sentence, even long after conviction, is generally spared. This has gone so far that in one case recently (in Connecticut, as I recall) a convict who was clearly guilty and acknowledged it, who asked that his execution be expedited, found himself in a catch-22 of having his execution delayed while his competency was evaluated. So in some odd sense, the suicide is "cheating the hangman," to the extent that the hangman feels cheated. It just isn't the same if it's voluntary.

I've always thought it would make more sense to encourage suicide in this case, but of course I have this odd idea that suicide is less of a sin than homicide, which governments and churches seem not to share. I would hand out little brochures in prison, outlining the stoical notion that suicide is an honorable way out of ineradicable error or insupportable guilt. They could even offer some kind of incentive for doing it quickly, painlessly and cheaply. Let the convict take charge of his own death. Why should we really care whether it's an atonement or an escape? It shouldn't be hard to figure out what the projected cost of a death row inmate's long incarceration will be. States could save a bundle by offering a suicide bonus, payable either to victims or dependents, prorated on how soon the convict takes the plunge. I bet some lifers would sign on too, given the chance, especially if they could earmark some of the bonus for their own families. The state could send a fat check to the victims, or to the inmate's children, and still come out ahead.

Of course, it will never happen, because capital punishment is not rational and suicide is a sin.

[Wolfman]

First, keep in mind, the person who is committing suicide in such a situation most likely does not consider the court's penalty to be "justice". They do not in any way view it as "escaping from justice". So you have to change your perspective.

I would argue that most people who commit suicide in such a situation do so for one of two reasons. Desperation/depression, or in order to assert control over their lives in a situation where there is not much they can control.

For some people, knowing that they are going to die, waiting for that sentence to be carried out can be torture in and of itself. If you're going to die, why suffer waiting for it to happen? Better to do it now, and be done with it.

For others, particularly those used to being in control, it is a matter of personal pride. Okay, death may be inevitable, but at least they will choose the time, place, and method of their death...not their captors.

Now, from the perspective of the outsider, has this person "escaped justice"? We will ignore for a moment the question of whether or not capital punishment should fall under the description of a "just" punishment, and assume that it is. In such a scenario, part of the purpose of the sentence is to punish the offender.

There's a big difference, psychologically, between the state of mind of a person who has chosen to take control and kill themselves, and a person who is executed by the authorities. In the former case, the person dies effectively thumbing their nose at the authorities, saying "I am still in control"; they can die defiantly. It is not a "punishment" as such -- certainly not a punishment inflicted by the authorities -- it is a willful decision made against the direct wishes of the authorities.

In the latter case, the victim has no control. The authorities choose the time, place, and method of their death, and the authorities inflict that punishment. It is possible to remain defiant -- Saddam would be an example of this -- but the fact remains that you had no control, your last breaths were suffered at the hands of your opponents, who had complete and utter control over you.

In terms of the actual physical effect, there is little difference. The person is dead.

In terms of the psychology of it, there's a big difference. The authorities lost control, and were unable to inflict the sentence that they had decided upon. He is dead; but was he "punished"? Or did he, in his final act, assert his independence and refusal to be bound by their punishment?

[DRBUZZ0]

Eh. I still don't see it as a means of getting control over anything. I think the case of Goering, for example, he took his life because he wanted to be defiant and call the shots in the end. He didn't want to be hanged but get a firing squad because that is more honorable. Not getting that, he took his own life.

But did he get the last laugh? He isn't laughing. he's decomposing.


Basically the fact that they take their own life is the ultimate defeat. It's not that they have control over anything. They have their freedom taken away. They cannot ever control their life. They can only end it. They are forced to have it as the one remaining thing they even can do, because they are caught.

Obviously such persons do not think they have faced justice.


And I suppose I'm a horrible inhuman for thinking this, but why would one discourage sucide of convicted lifers in prison? Spend money giving them bipasses and chemotherapy or whatever other medical care until they are 80 so they can stare at a wall and contribute nothing to the world and have no fufillment in life?

The punishment of giving someone life in prison is that they can never be a free person or have any liberty again. Why does it matter so much if that means they fester for a few more decades?

If faced with failing health and a life of no hope, why should one fight to prevent it? The savings in money alone would be massive.


But it's all symbolic. There's no reason why it is escaping. Or cheating anyone. Whether it's escaping the death penelty, life in prison or a trial.

I assume in cases where there is not a death penelty on the table or in states/countries that don't have it, it's seen as a similar thing when one takes their life less they face years of prison.

Anyways... if you do, you loose. Only I cant tell you that becasue you don't exist anymore. Which, if you're a mass murderer, is probably just as well..

[Crossbow]

At the time, Goering was sentenced to death by hanging.

Goering, and many others, consider this form of execution to be rather undignified and shameful since it is was the preferred method for the execution of criminals.

Goering was prepared to die, but he wanted to be executed a firing squad since he considered bullets to be a more dignified manner for a soldier to die and he did not consider himself to be criminal. Clearly, Goering had dazzling logic!

While Goering did not really cheat justice by committing suicide (since he was just as dead the one way as the other), however he did succeed in showing his various lackeys and apologists that he was able to thwart the will of the powers that defeated him and his nation.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

This might sound like a funny thing to say but I'm happy Hermann Goering and other Nazis and Hitler himself committed suicide.

Even monsters like that deserve the least of the least human dignity of dying on their own terms if they are going to die. What prisons do- that if you're sentenced to time, you're not allowed to commit suicide because having to live is part of the punishment and if you get the death penalty, you're not allowed to die until they kill you- is stripping an incarcarated or condemned person of their last rights to themselves. They aren't even allowed to die with some honor.

Hanging is the most shameful method of execution, enspecially for a military man convicted of something that's not a "common crime". In 19th century Europe, common criminals were hung while nobility and military and people convicted of "high" crimes like treason or conspiracy or war crimes (as oppossed to something like common murder) were reserved the honor of being executed by firing squad.

The Nuremberg trials delibrately chose to use hanging over firing squad, to shame the Nazis and to remove their military man treatment. I can understand why Goering would do anything to avoid hanging and why he'd want to cheat the Allies out of his own death. For him, I'd see why it would be much preferable to die by cyanide than by hanging or even firing squad.

[DRBUZZ0]

This might sound like a funny thing to say but I'm happy Hermann Goering and other Nazis and Hitler himself committed suicide.

Even monsters like that deserve the least of the least human dignity of dying on their own terms if they are going to die. What prisons do- that if you're sentenced to time, you're not allowed to commit suicide because having to live is part of the punishment and if you get the death penalty, you're not allowed to die until they kill you- is stripping an incarcarated or condemned person of their last rights to themselves. They aren't even allowed to die with some honor.

Hanging is the most shameful method of execution, enspecially for a military man convicted of something that's not a "common crime". In 19th century Europe, common criminals were hung while nobility and military and people convicted of "high" crimes like treason or conspiracy or war crimes (as oppossed to something like common murder) were reserved the honor of being executed by firing squad.

The Nuremberg trials delibrately chose to use hanging over firing squad, to shame the Nazis and to remove their military man treatment. I can understand why Goering would do anything to avoid hanging and why he'd want to cheat the Allies out of his own death. For him, I'd see why it would be much preferable to die by cyanide than by hanging or even firing squad.

Well first, I don't know that those like hitler and goering diserve any dignity. The things which were done by the regime was not comperable to an war fought with any honor or out of need for self-defense or even an any semblence of honor. Although surely many germans fought with honor on the battlefield, the leadership on top did not.

But as for Goering and others who take their life. It's pretty small consolation. I see it as about as much winning as spitting at the hangman when being hanged. It's analogous to loosing a battle but first taking a crap in the road, so when the enemy overtakes your area they'll have to deal with an unpleasent smell.

Very very small consolation all things considered. And you don't even get to enjoy the reaction.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well first, I don't know that those like hitler and goering diserve any dignity. The things which were done by the regime was not comperable to an war fought with any honor or out of need for self-defense or even an any semblence of honor. Although surely many germans fought with honor on the battlefield, the leadership on top did not.

But as for Goering and others who take their life. It's pretty small consolation. I see it as about as much winning as spitting at the hangman when being hanged. It's analogous to loosing a battle but first taking a crap in the road, so when the enemy overtakes your area they'll have to deal with an unpleasant smell.

Very very small consolation all things considered. And you don't even get to enjoy the reaction.

Oh yeah, I agree. What that regime didn't wasn't even comparable to a "war crime". Still, they were still human beings.

I wouldn't say so. Dying with dignity an on your own terms is very important when it's the only thing you have left. That's why prisons insist you live until they execute you. Remember that 70-year-old blind and deaf man executed in California about two years ago? I believe he had a heart ailment and had had a heart attack before and there was concern he might die before they executed him. In fact, he had gone to court asking that if he have a heart attack on the way to the needle, he be allowed to die of it but the state said that if that happened he'd be treated, put right and executed when he felt better. :rolleyes:

Alot of cultures place alot of importance on an honorable death and for a life-long military man like Hermann Goring it would have meant alot to be executed in what he thought was an honorable way fitting a soldier. He actually fought to get death by firing squad and even said he'd accept the verdict if it was by firing squad and not hanging.

Myself, I'd rather die in any way but hanging. There's something about hanging that's so disgusting and barbaric and demeaning that, as odd as this sounds, I'm almost relieved and happy for Goring that he managed to poison himself.

[fuelair]

This might sound like a funny thing to say but I'm happy Hermann Goering and other Nazis and Hitler himself committed suicide.

Even monsters like that deserve the least of the least human dignity of dying on their own terms if they are going to die. What prisons do- that if you're sentenced to time, you're not allowed to commit suicide because having to live is part of the punishment and if you get the death penalty, you're not allowed to die until they kill you- is stripping an incarcarated or condemned person of their last rights to themselves. They aren't even allowed to die with some honor.

Hanging is the most shameful method of execution, enspecially for a military man convicted of something that's not a "common crime". In 19th century Europe, common criminals were hung while nobility and military and people convicted of "high" crimes like treason or conspiracy or war crimes (as oppossed to something like common murder) were reserved the honor of being executed by firing squad.

The Nuremberg trials delibrately chose to use hanging over firing squad, to shame the Nazis and to remove their military man treatment. I can understand why Goering would do anything to avoid hanging and why he'd want to cheat the Allies out of his own death. For him, I'd see why it would be much preferable to die by cyanide than by hanging or even firing squad.
I can understand why he might prefer it - but he was no longer human. He lost that label conspiring with the other things that made up the Nazis. Nor was he a military man any longer if he ever had been - giving him that designation dishonors all real military men and women. I would have been happy to put the noose on him and kick his happy butt off the edge of the scaffold.

[DRBUZZ0]

Myself, I'd rather die in any way but hanging.

If it's done properly it's supposed to break your neck and/or immediately crush the blood vessels in the neck. If it's too far a drop you can be decapitated by the sheer force, which would certainly end it quickly, but would also leave a huge mess of spurting blood.

If not dropped far enough or if the rope is not tied properly you could end up being strangled, which would not be a good way, but I don't know of any evidence that the Nuremberg hangings were in any way botched.

It shouldn't really be prolonged or extremely painful or anything. Probably not really any worse than a firing squad. Certainly better many other ways, such as burning on the stake or hanging/drawing/quartering or having a red hot spike instered into your rectum.

[qayak]

Goring avoided justice by going out on his own terms instead of those of the society he wronged. If you were ordered to pay a victim $10,000.00 and had truckloads of manure delivered to their door until the monetary equivilent was $10,000.00, the victim would feel cheated.

And don't be too quick to label Goring a monster. He was completely human and what he did was completely within normal human behaviour. To label him a monster is to pretend that this type of thing will never happen again. The fact is, you couldn't tell a Nazi from any other human until it is too late.

Many researchers have stated that the surprise for them was how normal the people who committed these atrocities were. The banality of evil, Shermer talks about this in his book The Science of Good and Evil.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

If it's done properly it's supposed to break your neck and/or immediately crush the blood vessels in the neck. If it's too far a drop you can be decapitated by the sheer force, which would certainly end it quickly, but would also leave a huge mess of spurting blood.

If not dropped far enough or if the rope is not tied properly you could end up being strangled, which would not be a good way, but I don't know of any evidence that the Nuremberg hangings were in any way botched.

It shouldn't really be prolonged or extremely painful or anything. Probably not really any worse than a firing squad. Certainly better many other ways, such as burning on the stake or hanging/drawing/quartering or having a red hot spike instered into your rectum.

Getting shot seems to me to be much quicker, much cleaner, very hard to screw up and more dignified. You get to die standing on your feet and be killed in a modern and relatively civil way.

I can't explain what exactly I find so repulsive about hanging but I find it disgusting and barbaric. Maybe it's the association with lynching. Or maybe it's because of the many gruesome things that could happen if it were botched. Maybe it's that it can be done by anyone with a stool and rope. Maybe it's that it was a shameful death for rapists and murderers and peasants in Poland, where my family is originally from.

Maybe it's just the idea of being dropped from a height with a rope around your neck. And spinning around feet from the ground by a rope around your neck and on top of that being tied up like a rat and on top of that having your dead body get an erection or ejaculate or do it in your pants for everyone to see it.

Yes, it's better than Middle Ages execution methods but I still think it should be illegal in every civilized society.

[plumjam]

I understand your point, and your caveats. In most cases there isn't a lot of difference.

You probably agree that with some examples having the due court process go the full distance would be a lot better for society as a whole.
Let's just say that it would be possible for the 19 hijackers of 9/11 (if indeed they did it) to have parachuted safely to the ground just before impact, and that they would all be captured.
I think in that case it would have been a lot better for society, to be able to observe the whole process of justice at work. To find out what really happened, what were their motives, who supported them, whether any national leaders helped them or not, whether they knew of other planned attacks.
Possibly they wouldn't have spoken.. but I believe not all of them would have kept quiet.. not for long anyway. Probably torture would have been used (perhaps justifiably in this particular case).
Another benefit would be that probably the current situation would have been avoided. Where some people on both sides spend half their lives poring over the minutiae of the whole 9/11 event.
A huge amount of mental energy goes into this, which could be going elsewhere, perhaps constructive, if there had been more closure over the event that a court case could have offered.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To find out what really happened, what were their motives, who supported them, whether any national leaders helped them or not, whether they knew of other planned attacks.

I'm sorry to admit it, but I sort of agree with plumjam here. :)

It doesn't apply to the facts of the cases mentioned here (Goering was already tried and convicted; for the 9/11 hijackers, suicide was part of the crime), but in places like post-Apartheid South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation hearings were of value--not so much to get "justice" (often a label for revenge), as a way to let everyone have his or her day in court, to have a fair "hearing" of all sides to the stories.

[DRBUZZ0]

Well being shot through the heart will immediately stop it from pumping blood and cause massive loss of blood which will result in complete drop in blood pressure and no oxygen to your brain. You might be conscious for a good two or three seconds. That's an estimation, but it doesn't seem like it would be that far off from being hanged. Unless you're shot in the head of course.

I suppose if you want to be absolutely sure you never feel anything you'll want to use some sort of high impulse explosive and be right ontop of it, thus insuring that your brain is completely obliterated in microseconds...

Again seems like it's not that big a deal if you're dying anyway. Goering died from cyanide. Fast, but not *that* fast and not real pleasant. other convicts or those awaiting trial might hang from their underwear tied to a light fixture. Hardly fast and not dignified at all.

[plumjam]

I'm sorry to admit it, but I sort of agree with plumjam here. :)

It doesn't apply to the facts of the cases mentioned here (Goering was already tried and convicted; for the 9/11 hijackers, suicide was part of the crime), but in places like post-Apartheid South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation hearings were of value--not so much to get "justice" (often a label for revenge), as a way to let everyone have his or her day in court, to have a fair "hearing" of all sides to the stories.

thanks Joe, there's hope for you yet, eh? ;)

[plumjam]

Well being shot through the heart will immediately stop it from pumping blood and cause massive loss of blood which will result in complete drop in blood pressure and no oxygen to your brain. You might be conscious for a good two or three seconds. That's an estimation, but it doesn't seem like it would be that far off from being hanged. Unless you're shot in the head of course.

I suppose if you want to be absolutely sure you never feel anything you'll want to use some sort of high impulse explosive and be right ontop of it, thus insuring that your brain is completely obliterated in microseconds...

Again seems like it's not that big a deal if you're dying anyway. Goering died from cyanide. Fast, but not *that* fast and not real pleasant. other convicts or those awaiting trial might hang from their underwear tied to a light fixture. Hardly fast and not dignified at all.

DON'T DO IT, DR BUZZ... DON'T DO IT !

[articulett]

I'm with you Dr. Buzzo-- I'm all for such guilty people saving the tax payers money in whatever manner possible. I never understood the argument either. But I don't get pleasure from another person's suffering... the idea behind punishment is to serve as a warning to others and to keep such people from hurting others again-- but I can't imagine how it would make survivors feel better if the such people had lived. Maybe they'd like having someone to take out their anger on-- but many feel that the perpetrator is going to hell after their death, right? Why prolong the event if you are angry at the person?

Whenever I hear of convicted killers being put on suicide watch, I always think, "why?". I'd like my tax payer dollars spent keeping me safe from those who would inflict harm on me and my loved ones-- it seems like cyanide was a bargain in the case mentioned. I don't know what more would have been achieved and at what expense had he not done so, but I can't imagine why it would be better or how anyone was deprived of justice. Nothing fixes the crimes he committed. The only concern would be for his surviving victims and the resulting lesson to other potential criminals-- and the cost, right?

[DRBUZZ0]

I can basically see one thing that makes the death penalty worthwhile in cases like former Nazis and major terrorists which is beyond any other punishment.

They are gone. No appeal petitions or frivolous lawsuits about the conditions. No 60 minutes interviews in a visitor room or behind glass with an intercom. No letters written to news organizations. No reports on the news that the prisoner had suffered a minor heart attack or had gotten in a scuffle. Just gone. No more. Never hear anything about them. Wiped out of existence, in some respect.

Compare this to, for example, Charley Mason. Photos taken by a fellow inmate of him came out a year or so ago. A story was out a while back about how he had to be hospitalized with a stubborn infection. He does what he can to get interviews and makes artwork with is sold (but he cant get the money because that would be profiting from crime which is against the law in California. So it goes to some charity or something... not sure exactly)

For the most egregious violations and for serial killers the person becomes so infamous they can almost be an embodiment of the crime. Hence I think here the death penalty has some value, but only in the most extreme of the extreme cases. For those I feel very little sympathy.

I guess the alternative would be just throwing them in a hole with an assigned number and never even telling the public when they die. Just "They are gone" in the same sense.

But that cant be done in the US. They have the right to communicate with lawyers and to get mail and so on. So eh..

But if the person takes their own life I dont think thats unethical for the society, since they made the decision themselves, they disposed of themselves and they saved everyone a lot of money.

[ZirconBlue]

Whenever I hear of convicted killers being put on suicide watch, I always think, "why?". I'd like my tax payer dollars spent keeping me safe from those who would inflict harm on me and my loved ones-- it seems like cyanide was a bargain in the case mentioned. I don't know what more would have been achieved and at what expense had he not done so, but I can't imagine why it would be better or how anyone was deprived of justice. Nothing fixes the crimes he committed. The only concern would be for his surviving victims and the resulting lesson to other potential criminals-- and the cost, right?

I think the only problem with "allowing" suicide in prison is this: some less-well-liked prisoners might involuntarily "commit suicide". If you know what I mean.;)

[CptColumbo]

There was one man who (and this is the reason I remember it) was convicted on Sept. 11, 2001, for stalking a woman. Before he could be sentenced he took a cyanide pill and died.

I this case, I believe it was a final attempt to have control over the woman he was stalking. In his mind they would be forever linked and she would never be able to put him out of her mind.

[Kopji]

Allowing suicide violates a simple 'what if everyone did it' test. One of the long term goals of a justice system would be one of education - we are a people governed by law, and we are accountable to the law. Reports of hundreds of suicides a year would seem to both undermine that premise of law, and also provide a huge opportunity for abuse. How many innocent people would would confess and die for various reasons? How many jails would develop an expertise in providing ease of suicide? "$50,000 taxpayer dollars saved this year" something like that.

Seems like a bad idea. Capital punishment may or may not be a good idea, and I think is probably at least due for some major changes... but until then, following the course prescribed by law is at least partly what makes us a civilized people.

[Kopji]

Maybe more precisely to the OP.

Justice is not just a matter of the final outcome, it is our investment in a process that is designed to weigh actions in the balance and produce a consistent and fair result.

[Charlie Monoxide]

This is a little off track, but related.

There are 2 crimes that you can be charged with if you unsuccessful committing them, but if you succeed, you will not be charged.

The 1st one is suicide. It is illegal (IIRC) to attempt suicide.

The second is ....

Dang, I wish I knew how the spoiler thingy worked ...



Charlie (2nd is overthrowing a government) Monoxide