Right to die
27% (10 votes)
Justice for victims
41% (15 votes)
Neither
32% (12 votes)
Total votes: 37
Is the right to die or justice for victims more important (read first comment)?
Our Partners
Protect yourself! Always give credit when using the work of another!
Similar posts
User login
Like This Site?
If you would like to see ProgressiveU continue to grow, why not donate? We suggest $5, but any amount would be welcome
Highest Rated
Have You Seen This Yet?
Recent blog posts
Navigation
Progressive Books
Progressive U is proud to partner up with Powell's Books to help you search for any of your reading needs. You can search for used, new, out of print, fiction or nonfiction - even textbooks! And yes, giftcards are available as well...
Who's online
There are currently 5 users and 1439 guests online.
Online users
- littlebit
- sawaboof
- Mai_Tai_21
- Wombels
- mvenus929
Progressive U Features
This week's featured blogger is jlepp_journey! Learn more here!
Stumped about what to write about? Write on a Topic of the Week!
Need something to do in your spare time? Volunteer here at ProU!
Voting this year? Check out the Voting 101 guide!
Stumped about what to write about? Write on a Topic of the Week!
Need something to do in your spare time? Volunteer here at ProU!
Voting this year? Check out the Voting 101 guide!
Poll
Do you agree with the SCOTUS ruling on child rapists and the death penalty?
Yes, death penalty for murder only
16%
Yes; I don't support the death penalty
40%
No; rape should be considered
19%
No; it should be decided case by case
22%
Other
3%
Total votes: 58
Vote
A man murders another and is caught. The murdered man leaves a large family behind. While the offender is in jail awaiting trial, he gets sick and the only way to keep him alive is dialysis. As his trial date nears, he asks to be taken off of dialysis so that he may die. The prosecutor requests that the court deny his request (hypothetical situation here folks). Should the request be denied so he can stand trial for murder and justice be served for the family left behind or should he be granted his request? Which is more important in such a case (right to die for offender or justice for victims)?
I may sound really stupid here, but I couldn't figure it out - how do you read the comments for these before voting? I couldn't figure out how, so I voted blindly without reading the hypothetical situation.
Now that I have read it, I would probably change my vote depending on the circumstances: Is the medical care the accused receives is paid for by my tax dollars, since I doubt that bail is offered to many murderers,? Then there's always the possibility that the murderer is innocent. And then there's the circumstances of the murder - was it done in cold blood or was it negligence (like drunk driving), or was it an accident - what is the exact charge?
I don't think I would be able to make an honest decision here unless I knew all the details. At first I chose justice, but now that I read the situation, I think I would let the accused have the right to die simply because of the money that would be saved in court costs, the medical care, and whatever other expenses would be involved with a murder trial and prison costs for the accused. The family may feel justified in the death of the accused or they may want to see the accused suffer alive and in pain.
Perhaps if the accused WERE innocent, they would want to live at the chance of being cleared at the trial. Or there is always the possibility of an innocent person being found guilty.
Very thought-provoking situation.....
Just click on Vote and it will bring you to the poll page so you can read comments before voting.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
Thanks! I thought if I did that I would forfeit my vote.
You're not talking about justice for the victim; you're talking about 'justice' for the survivors. The victim is dead. There is nothing that can bring that person back. There is no justice to be served that requires that person to live.
On the other hand. There is no such thing as the right to die. Sure, people can make a choice to die or whatever, but to construe it (or anything else, for that matter) as a right is beyond reason.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
I would have to disagree with you there. While the family may not be direct victims, those left behind are still victimized by the crime; both the family of the accused and those of the murdered.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
Good point about the victim! LOL But I do suppose that the families of the actual victim could also be considered victims since death does affect those close to the victim.
The alleged murderer has the right to refuse medical treatment. In this case, that is the same as the right to choose to die. Without the medical treatment, he will die. Without it, he'll probably live longer than without it.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You're talking legal; I'm talking normative (or counternormative).
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
there isn't a way to read the comments before you vote. so i just chose neither to see the first comment, now i would like to choose justice for the victim/survivors. if the murderer didn't want to be convicted than he should have had a gunfight with the cops.
after breaking those laws, a person no longer has the rights that are given to them, not completely anyway. some rights cannot be taken away. the man, if convicted should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, as has happens already. although, if the man truly wants to die then all he has to do is commit suicide successfully in the first try, if the guards were to catch him in the act of trying then they would put him on suicide watch so he couldn't succeed.
although, there are many cases that have wrongly convicted a person, due to circumstantial evidence, and i am not saying that we shouldn't convict those who do wrong things, i am saying that prior to dna evidence and still thereafter, there have been charges pressed on the wrong people.
Yours truly,
.demosthenes
Now I don't feel so stupid about not being able to read the first comment! Is there any way to change this so the situation could be listed in the question? Or maybe put the situation in the forum and provide a link inside the poll question? That way no one has to just guess blindly and the post what they would want to change their answer to if they did want to change their answer?
There is a word limit on the polls, so we can't put the situation inside the poll. And now that it's already up, any edits we were to make to the question would skew the results, as those who have already voted would have to vote again and would be counted as having answered twice.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
Sure there is. If you read the recent tracking page, you can just click on the title of the poll. If you're just looking at the sidebar, since you want to just read the comments, you can click on 'vote' without choosing a response, and that'll bring you to the page. I'm not sure if it displays the number of comments before you vote (since I never use the sidebar), but you could also click on that to bring you to the comments.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
This situation could also overlap slightly with the Dr. Kevorkian argument (Dr. Death and assisted suicide in case I spelled the name incorrectly). Does the patient have a right to deny treatment or bring about their own death. Suicide falls into the same blanketed category. Does an individual have the right not to live?
Since I believe very much in personal freedom and the pursuit to do what is best for your own good (as long as you are not infringing on the good of another) I would have to argue that despite the pain and grief left for the victim's family the murderer has the right to refuse treatment.
I have never personally felt the fury left behind by a case unresolved, but as I am to understand it is horrible to deal with. But I consider the right to control your life as you see fit (namely life or death) without infringing on others trumps all other rights, including the right to receive justice.
The Heathen's Guide
LUST (Part I)
LUST (Part II)
The way I see it he will eventually face up to what he has done. If he wants god to punish him then thats his choice. I would wish him good luck God wouldnt be so understanding as a jury who gets false excuses.
Like comments so do I
check out mine
http://www.progressiveu.org/182456-vocational-rehabilitation
Once upon a time in my little mind.
By me Kaity Kat