Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Well I doubt that they'll keep him in there post-mortem. Right?

It happened before. Belgium's prison system is a tad overcrowded*. Had a case of cannibalism a few years back. (Someone ate someone's lung).

*Take that as 200% above capacity on average. Also, often buildings are not in a very good shape.

10ebbor10, his wife had a lighter sentence, and there is a rational for freeing her (Namely that she was unde rhis influence). Dutroux will never, ever get out. He was condemned with a specific clause that allow the government to keep him longer if deemed necessary, and no government ever is going to free Dutroux.

That may be the case for Dutroux. But for Breivik, he may be released if his message is successful and his country descends to radical nationalism.

Or maybe if it's decide that he's crazy, at which point he's no longer accountable for his actions. Then it's psychiatry, and after that he's free to go.

[Sheb]

Well, except being commited to an asylum mean you can't go out until you're cured. I don't see Breivik being "cured" any time soon.

[Leafsnail]

A nation does not quickly forget the killing of dozens of children.  Even if Norway turned nationalist the outrage over the act itself would remain.

[10ebbor10]

Well, except being commited to an asylum mean you can't go out until you're cured. I don't see Breivik being "cured" any time soon.

But what if that's exactly what happened. (Hypothese here) Say Breivik is declared unaccountable for his actions(from that point he's actually set free off all charges, but forced into psychatry because he's a danger to the community), send into an asylum and after a few years gets out.

Would the public accepts that. I'm afraid they won't, which is sad.

[kaijyuu]

Washington
Referendum 74 would determine whether same sex marriage would be legal in the state.

I've a personal investment in this, and am extremely hopeful that gay marriage will be legal there Woohoo!

[Heron TSG]

I know I'm approving 74.

[kaijyuu]

if it's unnatural, why does it happen in nature?

Don't let logic cloud your mind! That's the method of Satan!

[TripJack]

uh, aren't civil unions already legal in washington?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No. The bill passed the legislature months ago, but it was petitioned for a referendum vote. This is that. (And also, civil unions =/= same-sex marriage.)

[kaijyuu]

uh, aren't civil unions already legal in washington?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state

Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not, and is hopefully soon to be.

[Scoops Novel]

Preventing someone from ending their life is basically the complete obliteration of bodily autonomy and express tyranny of one's will over another. People have the right to many plenty of other life altering decisions, why not give them the most important one?

Mind you, I honestly think we should move towards legalizing self-suicide before worrying about the euthanasia stuff. Allow doctors to set up a situation where a patient can self-administer, for example.

but that does not mean no kindness.

If you say I have no choice but to suffer for months in unbearable agony, or remain almost completely unconscious via drugs, all the while piling hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt on my family, expressly in opposition to my desires, "for my own good" - yes, an absence of kindness (or any shred of decency, respect, or recognition of my rights as a human being) is very much the result.

a. it would be abused, and though i recognize worst case scenarios, the circumstance above is a worst case scenario and it it would be rather more common for abuses of the allowance to take place. B. prison sentences are meant to serve as a deterrent as well as a way of helping the commiter of the crime. An enforced life sentence, or ideally until they realize why what they did was wrong in the worse cases, with the help needed to achieve it, can be viewed as harsher then a suicide in my opinion. Legalizing self-suicide is also unlikely to have any net positives, especially if you're held accountable for preventing them from doing such. I'm far from certain about this in general life however, and should be viewed on a case by case basis in my opinion. Take the case here in the UK for example, where a paralyzed man wished for the law to be changed so he could have assisted suicide. However, because of the potential for abuses, he was denied it and starved himself to death. On the other hand, take Terry Pratchett. He says if his conditions worsens to a certain point he'll end it while his mind is still working well, and i understand why. Wishing to end life on a high is understandable, though i don't know about his current stance. Personally, i take the view that any life at all is preferable to death so long as they'res the potential for some good in it, simply because we don't know what comes next and it could quite easily be simply an end. However, others take another view, often rather easily staved off by survival instinct and perhaps a subconscious awareness of logical fallacies which is why we don't have mass suicides, thankfully. In the end, however, the potential for people to be pushed off the brink intentionally or due to it being an easier option outweighs the possible gains, and i cannot support legalizing it.

[TripJack]

Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not

what's the difference?

[Jervill]

We found out decades ago that "separate, but equal" doesn't really work.

[kaijyuu]

Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not

what's the difference?

I'm actually unsure of the details, but yeah, "separate but equal" isn't equal.


If it's truly no different, then the law changes nothing except removing some added bureaucracy. Simplifies things. Which is good.

[lorb]

Civil unions are legal. Marriage is not

what's the difference?

It differs from state to state but most differences fall in one of those groups:
taxes: there are a lot of tax breaks only open to married couples because civil unions can't file joint-tax returns
benefits: a lot of benefits open to married couples aren't to same-sex couples
adoption/parental rights: married couples always have a better (legal) standing here

edit: differences also exist for veterans benefits, health insurance, medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, immigration law ...

edit2: so "separate but equal" would actually be a huge improvement over the current situation