The sanctity of life argument is valid for the majority, but not necessarily for the most detested people in society. Maybe these should be allowed to die after all.
In 2003, Ian Huntley was convicted of murdering 10-year old school girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman a year previously in Cambridgeshire, England. A local school caretaker, Huntley played the media circus by appearing in front of the cameras during the investigation and pleading for information about the girls’ disappearance.
Since his imprisonment, Huntley has attempted suicide three times, despite being on suicide watch.
The Sanctity of Life
All religions teach that God creates life and that God takes it away again. The sanctity of life is something which underpins our stewardship of the world, the basic provision of healthcare and our treatment of each other. The idea that life is special and something to be respected means that humans shouldn’t do anything to hurt, damage or destroy life. It is God’s decision when we enter the world and only God should decide when we leave it.
Where the Sanctity of Life Argument Creates Problems
Most people would agree that life is something special and no-one should go out to deliberately injure or kill anyone; but if they do make this decision, should the sanctity of life argument still apply to them?
When people go to prison, they automatically lose some of their rights. They cannot vote, they lose their freedom and their crime is on their record – and conscience. The question is whether this goes far enough for some offenders.
The Most Dangerous and Most Hated Offenders
Every now and then, an Ian Huntley situation occurs. There is someone in prison who is violent or dangerous, who is hated and – in Huntley’s case of his 40 year wait for release – will not see freedom for a long time.
Sometimes, these people find life so unbearable and their crimes so detestable that they attempt suicide. In Huntley’s case, three times.
At present, the law dictates that everyone, regardless of what they have done and where they are, should be stopped from dying. They should be given medical help and support and not be allowed to end their lives.
Yet there is also an argument that these people are not wanted or needed in society. Whatever God’s position, if they want to die and are so miserable being alive, if they are so unpopular and their lives are no benefit to society, shouldn’t they be allowed to die? There seems little point in spending do much time and money on someone who doesn’t want to be here and will probably be lynched if they do ever experience life outside prison.
Life may be special but for some people even God’s love for them must determine that it would be better if they were allowed to die.
The copyright of the article Ian Huntley Suicide Bid in Religious Intolerance is owned by Ben Hughes. Permission to republish Ian Huntley Suicide Bid must be granted by the author in writing.
Who's really on suicide watch after the 9-5 shift ie the preventing of others suiciding 24/7 inside and outside prison. If it's breached, is it simply a breach of the breachable 'sanctity' of life...so we should lower our expectations about ever having society in harmony on what our rights and responsibilities are.
In 2006, it was reported: <i>"SOHAM murderer Ian Huntley has been released from hospital after swallowing a massive cocktail of anti-depressants in the early hours of yesterday morning. Huntley was given the pills by fellow prisoners in the hope that he would kill himself."</i>
In September 2007, it was again reported he overdosed on prescription drugs. And how "inexplicable" his access to medication was.
Back in 2003, post conviction, it was reported: <i>"...and police and social workers began to face accusations that their blunders had let Huntley, who had a long history of violence, win the job of school caretaker that allowed him to lure the girls to his home."</i> ------- It's pretty hard to 2nd guess the reported suicide attempts by Ian Huntley, but your article's question seems to extend to our tolerance for assisted suicide and justifiable murder as well as, Huntley aside, our compassion for the mentally ill among us. Better those ethical dilemnas to face than that faced by capital punishment?
Oct 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Ben Hughes
:
But if these people are considered so evil and they either can't face their crimes or want to end their lives for whatever reason, isn't it the kinder option just to let them die? Even capital punishment could be considered humane in these circumstances. I suppose it's not particularly about the mentally ill but for those people too evil to live in a proper society. Is it better for these people to make the decision for their life to end or for someone else to prolong it against their wishes?
Oct 15, 2007 7:54 PM
redback
:
Sorry for delay.
'Evil' conjures up the Devil for me and I'd need to examine evidence re 'possession' first. :)
If people are considered so 'evil' by the prison officers commissioned to guard them, who then endorses the prison officers' actions to take the law into their subjective hands?
<b>"isn't it the kinder..."</b>
If the punishment is meant to truly fit the crime, why enable a kindness denied their victims and victim's families etc? Their imprisonment should be prolonged <i>"against their wishes"</i>, seems to me.
I don't look to mental illness as an excuse. People will either believe it exists to the extent culpability ceases to exist...or they won't. Criminals will exploit mental health loopholes to wrongly avoid punishment. But if he aint mentally ill, those who prescribed medications are culpable.
Oct 16, 2007 12:13 PM
Ben Hughes
:
"...who then endorses the prison officers' actions to take the law into their subjective hands?"
Surely it isn't the prison officers making the decisions. It would be the medical profession taking actions based on legal guidelines (i.e whether the person was found guilty and what constitutes a bad a enough crime etc). The idea that prison officers would make a decision is probably one we shouldn't get into. They aren't qualified for it and it is beyond their expertise and duties.
"...why enable a kindness denied their victims and victim's families etc? Their imprisonment should be prolonged "against their wishes", seems to me."
Could these actions help the victims though? Wouldn't it be good "revenge" and an end to the "story" rather than thinking they might get out of prison one day and having it brought up in the media?
I don't know. Just a thought.
As for mental illness, I do think that it seems to be used quite a lot. At least, that's what comes across in the media. It makes me wonder if mental illness (or instability) must be present for some kind of crimes to be committed, unless we all suffer from what is called mental illness and it's just more obvious in some people than others.
Oct 16, 2007 11:52 PM
redback
:
How <b>IS</b> Huntley accessing medication that he uses for (every) suicide bid if not by some collusion or 'blind eye' of the guards? Is giving Huntley or anyone their weapon-of-choice...to kill themselves...a form of capital punishment-by-proxy? You know, the capital punishment you have when there is no political guts to legalise it. Laws by default? Doctors the executioners...yeah right??? Just treating GPs or government specialists with good pass marks in Kill101? :)
Mental illness.
Ancient peoples in Biblical times believed the Bible gave clear connections between sin and mental illness. And at times I really have to wonder if we've progressed. YEP, it's used as a fake excuse at times to avoid or mitigate punishment. The fault for that rests with the decisionmakers and defence attornies, not the one claiming. YEP, it's under-treated at times thus increasing avoidable suicides. YEP people with mental illness on all the evidence are at greater risk of being assaulted, than offending. YEP, we actually make it worse and more costly to us, by our attitudes. -------- In all this, are we talking about what should be...or what is? Is it better to ENSURE every criminal goes to gaol rather than let ONE go free? If we think that's a tad unfair, let alone unmanageable...then we have to cop the consequences of compromise. And 'society' really makes a mess of trying to compromise. Coz 'society' is a theory itself. Assuming everyone is going to agree about something all the time.
My 2-year old great-nephew was murdered...by his uncle last year. Had his throat cut in the car while my niece and her hubby ducked into their parents home...where the uncle lived.
Do we wait for the media to bring it up again..to remember? The aim of justice should be to fit the crime...not to sate what may well be an insatiable lust for revenge. What revenge should my eldest brother seek who lost his grandchild?
Oct 17, 2007 7:14 PM
redback
:
I probably should tell you that I am a mental health advocate aiming to reduce stigma among other things. Whether mental illness is a fake excuse or everyone has it...the sad truth probably lies further from fake. Current evidence is 20% of us will suffer it in our lifetimes and criminals are not immune from this. But WHAT IF a person can't form an intent to commit a crime? And what of those 2 kids who killed a child in your country?
There are shades of grey in these black and white issues, methinks.
But apologies if I was on my soapbox. :)
Oct 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Ben Hughes
:
No apologies needed. Sorry to hear your sad story.
Mental illness has a huge stigma attached to it, much more than things which have become increasingly accepted in society like divorce an abortion. I think that some of the prejudice is because of ignorance and some probably because those with severe mental illenss aren't in a position to fight back.
I have worked around people in prison and bail hostels and mental illness and like I think I said before, maybe mental illness is just on a scale - everyone has it but it's just some have it worse than others.
In the UK, there have been discussions for a while about trying to identify people who might be at risk of committing a crims and so intervening earlier in their lives. A frightening thought I feel, especially if reports of preventative medication or imprisonment are true.
In terms of people not having an intent to commit a crime or someone being below a criminal age of responsibility, I don;t know what to do. I still feel the media are one of the problems, in that they blow things out of proportion and whip up attention where it isn't needed. But it's still a problem isn't it? What do we do, or should we leave them to it? I don't think there's a right answer.
In the case of Ian Huntley, I don't know how he got the medication and I don't know how he's attempted suicide while on suicide watch. Obviously something in the system is going wrong but no-one's made much of a deal out of that.
The question I was thinking about was: if someone's done something so bad and they want to end their lives, should anyone step in to stop them from doing it? Or is a life precious no matter what? I'd like to say the latter but then the media keep showing victims saying the former. It's another one I'm not sure there's a right answer to.
Oct 18, 2007 7:22 PM
redback
:
Tis why the 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' title seems relevant to most of your questions.
I keep flogging the idea we should get fair dinkum about true preventatitive measures. The idea that earliest intervention is when a crisis happens, is not the same thing. I liked the idea of the Mental Health First Aid course as a preventative measure so have done that and advocated successfully for its introduction in schools and some government agencies. I thought we sent that to the UK and USA too.
We've come a long way in genetic etc research so should exploit the gains IF we have the political will to finance research.
Why is there a disproportianate number of people with mental illness, in prison? And what would have kept them out? I reckon they slipped through the many cracks in the systems. I'm not forgetting about personal accountability. But if society thinks its a problem and only waits until personal accountability kicks in...or prayers are answered...we'll be WAITING.
I reckon 'no intent' is a valid concept but should it set someone free or simply mitigate the penalty or re-direct them to enough forensic institutions that aren't yet built here? But you do know warm fuzzy stories don't sell papers, don't you? :)
Right answers without any need to accept second best...or right enough so that we'll tolerate collateral damage to someone else? I mean, if WE cop problems, they'd better fix it better, eh?
If someone is attempting to suicide in front of you, how much time do you have to make any judgement about the 'worthiness' of their intent? Or no judgement at all...except the one that says if that's what they want, maybe I'll give them privacy?
There's been a big fuss here about the selective attitude to death by capital punishment. Tis OK for the 'Bali Bombers' who killed 88 Aussies plus UK citizens from memory. But not OK for drug couriers who 'don't' harm a soul? My take is if you walk in a country that has the death penalty, you walk in harms way where a foreign country ie your own country, may not be able to help you.
Life is selectively precious. There really is not equal access to the "pursuit of happiness" as the Yanks seek nor is their equal 'happiness' if you get what you are in pursuit of. :)
Our family is not unique but we seem to have copped a fair share. Reminds me of 'WHY ME' vs 'WHY NOT ME' the longer we live.
Oct 26, 2007 2:25 PM
Ben Hughes
:
Thanks for your post. Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you.
I haven't heard of the Mental Health First Aid course but then I'm not working in that field so maybe it's working over here in the UK. But leading on from your comments about the number of people with mentall illness in prisons, research has been saying for years that prisons aren't the best place for these people as they're not getting the care, medication and attention they need. The question is then what should be done and as we've discussed I don't think there's a correct definite answer.
When it comes to different countries, I think we should all lives by the rules of the country we're in. The only trouble is that some countries have a lot more access to some things than others. But does it mean that these people, in their pursuit of happiness, are better than others or should treat others differently? I don't think so. I'm along the lines that everyone is equal unless someone decides that THEY aren't equal themselves. Only by opting out of things themselves is the equilibrium broken.
