Sunday, September 30, 2007


It would be too easy for me to take apart the leaders from the tabloid press, still easier for me to echo their populist outrage ... but maybe I can start from there to make a more sophisticated yet even more controversial suggestion.

A sick murderous cruel brute tried to kill himself in jail. And like most people I think we should have let him do it instead of spending a fortune on eternal "suicide watch". So does that make me like the red top editors?

In fact it's probably the sickest most vengeful members of the public who want him alive, just so they can drag out his torment.

Back to the villain of the piece, he was not even allowed to starve himself to death. Even though starvation is surely a horrible slow painful miserable tortuous way to die.

So why do we let our dying loved ones go that terrible way instead of hastening the end?


Ann said...

Very good question.

I guess there's a case for wanting the criminal to live for long enough to reform.

If Huntley had topped himself we would save a significant amount of taxpayers money on his incarceration but we would probably find that a similar amount would be spent on an inquiry charged with invesigating the incident.

Monetary considerations aside, his life or death are nothing to me.

And I don't judge those who want revenge in the same way that you do. If I had suffered a loss as the result of his actions then I would find thoughts of revenge much easier to summon than thoughts of forgiveness.

RNB said...

The question wasn't about Huntley :)

That was the topical link towards the broader ethical point...