Here's a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4382600.stm

This might be old news to Julian and maybe others, but I thought I'd post it anyway, even though the topic in the linked story doesn't debate Brady's right to die.

Ian Brady and his accomplice, Myra Hindley, committed at least five horrific murders of children in the early 1960s in northern England. They were caught and tried in 1965, and sentenced to life imprisonment (the death penalty had been outlawed in Britain only a few months before their capture).

The two became estranged within a few years of their imprisonment. Hindley spent decades attempting to win her freedom, with the support of a handful of notable figures including the late Lord Longford. She died in prison in 2002.

Brady has never attempted to win parole, says he wants to die, and has been force-fed through a tube for the last six years. His latest comment on the murders is that they were an "existential exercise" and that he had, in fact, planned to switch to committing armed robberies just before they were apprehended.

The question for debate is this:

Whether or not you believe in the death penalty being imposed by a government, do prisoners have the right to commit suicide? Does it make a difference depending on what crime they committed, or, perhaps in the case of Brady and Hindley (who were detested by Britons and probably would not have survived had they been released), depending on society's perception of their guilt or innocence?

He should have the right, assuming he is of sound mind. There is nothing more intrinsic a thing that can be owned by a man(or woman) than his own life. I see no legal, moral, or ethical reasoning that would supports forcing someone to keep living that deeply and profoundly wishes to die, assuming, again, that they are of sound mind.

I also do not think the crime matters. Forcibly keeping this man alive will neither bring back the victims nor domehow remunerate their families. Then again, I'm not interested in punishment, I'm interested in deterrence and lack of recidivism. Both are served in this case.

Whether or not you believe in the death penalty being imposed by a government, do prisoners have the right to commit suicide?

Hmm. In general terms, I think that there is no "right" to suicide. Certainly, it shouldn't, in and of itself, be a crime. And I think that in the narrow case of euthanasia, there should be provisions to allow someone's own wishes to prevail over and above those of their family or their physicians.

If Brady wants to commit suicide, fine. But I'm not sure that's REALLY what he wants. I think he wants to stop having to live with what he's done - he wants to end his sentence, and is guilty, so has no chance of doing it through appeal. In THIS context, he shouldn't be allowed to starve himself to death.

If he can think of another way to kill himself that doesn't make prison staff and other prisoners at least tangentially complicit, and if he first makes a full and frank confession and reveals the whereabouts of the remains of his last few victims so their families can give them a decent burial, THEN he can do what he likes. In the meantime, he should be kept alive against his will. Humanely - I'm not asking for anything cruel or unusual here - but in my opinion this man, and other like him, forfeit all control over their own life on commission of their crimes.

I am against the death penalty, and I think that the rehabilitative aspects of the criminal justice system are too often underplayed. But neither am I against the retributive aspects. If Brady wants to die, and not getting what he wants will prolong his suffering and maybe even induce some remorse, then he should be kept alive. I do not believe in hell, so I don't think his punishment is goign to happen in a next life that I don't think exists. If he's going to be punished at all, it has to be here, and treating him more humanely than he treated his victims while keeping him alive to think about what he did is in itself a kind of punishment.

Does it make a difference depending on what crime they committed, or, perhaps in the case of Brady and Hindley (who were detested by Britons and probably would not have survived had they been released), depending on society's perception of their guilt or innocence?

Yes, it does make a difference. People like Hindley should be denied the possibility of evading justice through suicide. Another British mass-murderer, Fred West - if anything he was more abhorrent than Brady, and certainly had more victims - killed himself in his cell prior to his trial. That should not be alllowed. Not only do the guilty (like West) evade justice, but (more often) the innocent but depsairing take their own lives because they don't trust the justice system will give them fair treatment, or because they are being persecuted by prison staff or other prisoners.

The problem with suicide in prisons is not that there are not enough of them, but that there are too many, especially among remand prisoners.

Whether or not you believe in the death penalty being imposed by a government, do prisoners have the right to commit suicide?

I don't believe that prisoners have the right to commit suicide. I think that since they have been sentenced to their penalty for their crimes, they should have to see these penalties carried out, be it death, or the rest of their natural lives in a cell.

Does it make a difference depending on what crime they committed, or, perhaps in the case of Brady and Hindley (who were detested by Britons and probably would not have survived had they been released), depending on society's perception of their guilt or innocence?


The prisoner himself shouldn't be allowed to end his punishment, in the case of a child murderer or a woman rapist or killer. These crimes are so dishonorable that they must serve out their sentences. As for other criminals like bank robbers or drug dealers, if they choose to end their lives to end the humiliation and erase their dishonor, I think that should be allowed.

This is an unusual situation and requires much thought. Let me get some preliminary thoughts out of the way.

When a person faces a future of nothing but extreme suffering (such as terminally ill patients with uncontrollable pain), it is proper to honor a wish to die. In other cases of attempted suicide, it may be necessary to restrain persons until everything possible can be done to help them. (In particular, treatment for mental illness.) However, when a person is genuinely determined to die, and only permanent imposition of extreme measures will prevent this, the person should be allowed to do so. Again, it must be pointed out that everything possible be done to change the person's mind.

In the specific case of deliberate suicide by self-starvation, the person should always be offered nutrition, but should not be force-fed. (Let me make it clear here that I am not talking about situations like anorexia, where some kind of enforced nutrition may be medically necessary, but only cases where a rational decision to die from starvation has been made.) Force-feeding is an inherently cruel procedure.

The crime of the person involved is not relevant here, I believe. I would oppose force-feeding of any person who is genuinely, permanently determined to die. (Again, excluding treatable mental illness.) This would apply from everyone from the most loathsome murderer to the most noble political prisoner.