I partly agree.
I don't believe in retribution (in terms of revenge), yet I still think that criminals should "suffer" the consequences of their actions. I don't mean suffer as in being tortured physically or mentally by outside forces, or being deprived from basic human needs. But they should have to suffer through their own guilt and conscience about what horrendous acts they have committed.
And I don't think someone should be allowed to commit homicide or another indictable crime, be sentenced to incarceration and then be killed via capital punishment. And I don't agree with prisoners being able to have access to euthanasia either. I equate that to a serial killer committing suicide after they've already killed over 20 people, merely to escape the guilt and consequences of their actions.
There seems no justice in a system where a criminal can be put to death OR choose to die, instead of truly having to live with the consequences of their actions.
My response to this is still why?
The suffering is the deprivation liberty, perhaps for the natural life of the accussed. Such confinement and the necessity to live with others (who are often violent etc) is a large enough punishment in itself. However, as I have previously argued, on paper the official stance is one of rehabilitation or if that is not possible restraint from further community harm. The fact that jail often does physically and mentally torture inmates stands as an aside (its not its offical "reason" for existing).
So then I turn to you and ask why does it matter or not if the criminal is to spend the rest of his natural life in his cell or to die? Once the threat of reoffending and harm to the community has been removed, why is it pertinent that they "suffer" from inside forces, particularly their own mental processes? Arguably, in order to commit acts such as homicide, molestation, violent robbery or rape, a criminal would need to have an abnormal mental state anyway, what makes you think that by keeping them locked in a cage for 40 yrs their troubled brain patterns are going to unmuddle & they will fall to their knees in act of sorrow and seek redemption? In what sense does it make you feel better personally knowing that while you lay there at night some other human is mentally suffering, tortured by guilt? If you require this as an element of a "good community" then your own mental state would be drawn into question?
As to the victims family of these crimes. State sanctioned slaughter of the prisoner will not bring back their child; it will never take away their grief, nor will any knowledge of the prisoners pain/suffering. Though purely idealistic [but it has occured] if the justice system did actually function as it should, a rehabilitated prisoner offering a formal apology to the family may actually be the closest thing the family can get towards closure.
Other then our own violent intutions as a species and need for an "eye for eye" [the most disgusting element of "old testament" morality] I can not find a rational justification for the ongoing imposition of "suffering" upon another individual, beyond the deprivation of their ability to further violate the liberty of others.
As to whether they should be able to end their own life, if it is a rational and thorough decision that has been reached, then all individual's should have full capacity over the future of their consciousness. Now in the realm of the "outside world", this should
generally be restricted to those with terminal illnesses (as a range of other psychological treatments are available to any one else), yet I don't feel those serving a life sentence are any different to those with a terminal illness. If you have come to the conclusion like myself that they are not there to "suffer" and are only being held to protect the community, then why delay the inevitable (natural death) for them
if it's their choice?