what's your opinion on euthanasia and what do you think about death penalty?

Question

thanks everyone for answering :)

Answer 1

Euthanasia - I believe that if someone is in a persistent vegetative state - IE Terry Schiavo that it should not be considered a crime but should be a decission reached by those closest to the person that best know what the person would want.

Basically, if someone has the capacity to decide then they should be able to. This is what DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders, TOD (Transfer On Death) orders for financial assets are all about - making a conscious decission of sound mind about what to do if such a situation arises and you are unable to communicate your wishes. If you don't make your wishes known ahead of time, the state will assume the decission for you.

Best decide on DNRs and persistent vegetative and such before the issue comes up in legal format in the form of a living will. Nobody likes to think about stuff like that though - seems pretty morbid, but it does happen. I know I would rather not put my family in a position to decide nor do I want to be kept around as a political tool for the state. I'd much rather avoid the issue entirely.

Death Penalty - the death penalty has never proven to be an effective deterrent for crime. That said, to me the only purpose it serves is to protect society from a danger and releasing it of a burden.

Its certainly not about rehabilitation. Simply a needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few kind of thing - its one thing to volunteer to jump on a grenade. Its something else to be pushed on top of it. If the party is guilty, well, I guess that's justice. If they are not, then its state sponsored murder.

However, since there is no way to rescind such a sentence or offer any kind of compensation for it, you had BETTER be sure. I don't believe the court system or forensic science can be that sure.

There are people who have been on death row for decades that have been exonerated due to advances in forensic science since their incarceration. When the final button is pushed, who's to say that the day after won't bring a new scientific discovery that would prove the guilt of another party? Afterall, its happened before in the history of forensic science many times. It doesn't seem reasonable to assume it won't again.

Also consider that, at the initial trial, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but on appeal, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Its far easier to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt than it is to establish innocence beyond reasonable doubt - WITHOUT taking into account a system that has a vested interest in maintaining the appearance of infallibility in the eyes of the public.

I think that when it comes to the death penalty, things are much more sticky - if the person is claiming innocence they are not OK with having their life end. This is far different than a pre-existing DNR or discontinue support in the event of a persistent vegetative state order in one's will.

They are similar in the fact that both issues involve the ending of a life. I think that's where the similarity ends to be honest.

Answer 2

Euthanasia - my body, my choice. The scary thing is that
when I really need it, I may be too weak to fulfill it myself
and the State is so screwed up it can't help me.

Death penalty - well, when it becomes cheaper than
keeping somebody in prison for life and we can be
reasonably sure that people who get it are actually
guilty of the crime, then ... we'll talk. Until then, it
is just obviously wrong.

If we absolutely knew that the people we were
considering executing were guilty, then you end up
breaking the penal system down into 4 components:

1: Protect society
2: Rehabilitate criminal
3: Punish criminal (state imposed retribution)
4: Protect the criminal from society

The death penalty is pretty good at 1 and 3 and
clearly fails on 2 and 4. However, the current
"build more prisons" mentality fails on those
same grounds, so I guess it is within keeping.

And by the way, for the trifecta: Yes - I am
pro-choice. I would never have an abortion
myself, but I fully understand that I cannot possibly
be in the shoes of someone considering that
until ... it happens to me.

Answer 3

Euthanasia should be an option open to people, at least under certain circumstances.

The death penalty should be used when it is in the best interest of society. Would the person present a threat to others if he or she escaped or was released? If the answer is yes, then execution is appropriate.

Answer 4

Euthanasia - Not unless it's voluntary (The term Euthanasia refers to both voluntary and involuntary mercy killing)
Assisted Suicide - Yes, under controlled circumstances (appropriate medical diagnosis of unremitting pain or loss of human dignity; and eminent or inevitable death without release from that condition)
Death Penalty - Absolutely, under controlled circumstances. I have yet to see a murderer that has been executed kill again. There are many serving Life sentences that have killed again. I want to protect those victims.

Answer 5

Euthanasia-yes, it should be a consenting adults right to decide.

Death Penalty-No Way-We need to leave prisoners in prison, no parole, no privileges other than food, water and outside time...killing them does nothing to teach lessons to them or detour other criminals. If a person knew they would really have to spend the rest of their life in prison without privileges like TV, phone calls (except to their attorneys), pool tables, books, NOTHING...except the very basics- It would detour people and allow the prison systems to stay within budgets.

Answer 6

People should have the right to end their life according to the circumstances set forth in their living will. This is not a matter for government.

The death penalty is fine; I have no issue with that as regards violent crimes.

Answer 7

I believe very strongly that a person's life belongs to them and that they have every right to determine its course. However, if a person causes a life to be taken, then they owes for that life. The only thing that can replace a life is a life, but you don't have to kill a person because then nothing is gained. Rather, a person should have to be in economic servitude for life to the people who were damaged by their action. If this is waived, then the state may choose to execute them.