4 ms·
Setting aside this specific situation. Let's say you run a prison, and an inmate goes on a "hunger strike" for a reason that's important to them. What should
by josefresco 7y ago
Setting aside this specific situation. Let's say you run a prison, and an inmate goes on a "hunger strike" for a reason that's important to them. What should the prison operators do? Force feed the inmate, negotiate, give into their demands, or let them die? Let's say you try to negotiate, but the inmate is making unreasonable demands or you are not willing to meet their demands, then what?
- nabla9 7y agoPeople should be able to control their bodies. If you don't want to eat. Nobody should force feed you.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- InterimNew 7y agoI'm not trying to muddy the waters on this issue or take a consequentialist perspective, but how is this materially different from someone rejecting oxygen? The moral response seems to be to intervene rather than let someone commit suicide, regardless of how long it takes.
- DanielBMarkham 7y agoI'm firmly in the "you own your body" camp. But we have to admit that ok, hanging yourself in your cell should be fine, because of this logic. The reason it's not is political: looks a lot better to have somebody run a story "those horrible prisons are making prisoners eat!" than it is "two-hundred inmates supposedly hung themselves last year because they had the right to" This is a political battle the prisoner is having with the jail: I am unhappy and ready to die. Make my life just a tiny bit more bearable or I will die in a way that makes you look bad. I could go into a long rant about all the problems of the American system of jurisprudence. There are tons. We've lost our way on the reasons for prisons and the purpose of incarceration, amongst a lot of other related matters. I still think these folks should have absolute control over their bodies. If it looks bad? Well, it looks bad for a very good reason. Political systems exist for political reasons. People forget that and ascribe all sorts of things to these systems they never deserved even when they were working well. We need a lot of reform. I wish these folks the best of luck.
- nabla9 7y agoRefusing food is less violent. Just like people have the right to refuse refuse to take medicine, refuse medical treatments etc, they should be able to refuse food.
- heraclius 7y agoThey should be allowed to die. This is the reasonable position. Societal reaction to such action may change administrative policy, but it would do so through entirely proper political channels. The job of the civil servant is to implement policy and advise, not to determine or defend it from changes made in a proper fashion.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- iooi 7y agoTo everyone saying to let them die, then where is the punishment? Most terrorists would rather and, in fact, intend to die during their attacks. If you let them die, not only are you giving them what they want, but then there is no deterrent to carrying out suicide missions.
- plorkyeran 7y agoI don't see any reason to believe that the fear of prison should they fail to die has ever, or will ever, deter even a single person from carrying out a suicide mission.
- anbop 7y agoThe lack of deterrent effect doesn’t mean that society’s desire for punishment vanishes. If there was a treatment that could make Osama Bin Laden a perfectly normal accountant in Des Moines I would not advocate for it compared to a trial and execution.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoC/f this vindictive attitude with how the Norwegians have treated Brivik. He has been gently and humanly turned into a joke when he could have been a martyr...
- maxheadroom 7y ago>...but then there is no deterrent... The deterrent premise is as old as at least the Inquisition (12th century) and has worked out quite well to reduce crime and recidivism rates in the world to nigh zero levels in the centuries since... /s
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ionised 7y agoYou don't have a deterrent to begin with.