This is kind of stretching the point for those who rationalize..the guy who tried to kill himself parking on the train tracks but chickened out, in California.

Many are shouting for us to kill him because he wanted to do it to himself.

Well then,.....when someone shoots another(whether to kill or wound) in an attack, shouldn't we just KILL them too because when they are convicted, they will just be put away forever and they chose to shoot at someone and from THAT point put an end to THEIR OWN future,so why 'try' them in court and put them away???

When someone commits a life-threatening crime, they have no future!  The cell door closes.

Some get life in prison but is that what they really want?? Maybe by commiting whatever crime, they just are committing a different kind of "life" suicide...and they want US fellow good guys to care for them???

Are they just wrong for not thinking their future through??? I figure, what kind of person plans to do something horrid and expects to live off others??

No one I know!   

I think killing this guy would be giving him what he wanted... death. Life in solidatary confinement or something would be a far better punishment.

Just my thoughts summed up in one small sentence.

Last update I've heard said that he did not want to kill himself but instead wanted to cause a "horrific" accident, though I don't know if they said why, or if I simply don't remember.

I think killing this guy would be giving him what he wanted... death. Life in solidatary confinement or something would be a far better punishment.

Just my thoughts summed up in one small sentence.


From the people who hold candle light visuals for convicted mass murderers about to be put to death, and the same people who want that handicapped woman in Florida dead...NOW.  I mean a convicted murder gets 20 years...but not the handicapped woman.

I haven''t heard about the handicapped woman in Florida. Is there a link somewhere from a site without a conservative bias?

Heard the lawyer interviewed for the train guy..he will not go for the insanity plea and it will or should not be first degree murder as the guy didn't do it to kill others on the train...in some cases trains don't leave tracks, so they would have to prove he wanted to kill those...either way another one for the books..

But overall how do we reduce dumb a**** who commit crimes....NO TOLERANCE THAT'S HOW!!!

Heard the lawyer interviewed for the train guy..he will not go for the insanity plea and it will or should not be first degree murder as the guy didn't do it to kill others on the train...in some cases trains don't leave tracks, so they would have to prove he wanted to kill those...either way another one for the books..

But overall how do we reduce dumb a**** who commit crimes....NO TOLERANCE THAT'S HOW!!!




Wow, you're very unforgiving aren't you?  :-\\  But I agree this perp should get harsh punishment. 

I wish it would be right to give him dp, that way we need't bother with life in prison, but it simply wouldn't be right.  I say life without parole, in solitary confinement.  But the penalty need not be more cruel than necessary. 

I haven''t heard about the handicapped woman in Florida. Is there a link somewhere from a site without a conservative bias?


Here is a link to the CNN story.  Terry Schiavo is a woman who suffered severe brain damage after suffering a heart attack 20 yrs ago.  She is on a feeding tube because she can't feed herself.  The parents say she is alert...the husband wants to tube removed.  He says it is what she would want.  This story is a testament to the necessity of a living will.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/

Here is a link to the CNN story.  Terry Schiavo is a woman who suffered severe brain damage after suffering a heart attack 20 yrs ago.  She is on a feeding tube because she can't feed herself.  The parents say she is alert...the husband wants to tube removed.  He says it is what she would want.  This story is a testament to the necessity of a living will.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/

The case raises a dozen important ethical questions.  I agree, living wil is the way to go!!
I object to the need for Mrs. Schiavo to either live X number of years more semi-comatose or die a terrible three-week death of dehydration.
That woman's consciousness will never recover UNLESS there are radical advancements in brain surgery. 
The problem I have with "assisted suicide" in this case is Mrs. Schiavo cannot consent.  Anyway, who is to say for her "quality of life" her biological life is not worth saving?
Yet, from the footage I have seen, I think the parents are in denial about the limited consciousness of their daughter.

I can't decide on this one, and I'm glad I don't have to.

GWB's observation that many anti-death penalty types support the husband on the termination of his wife's bilogical life is completely specious.  It is even more specious than the Right's constant carping about "pro-choice" people being against capital punishment.
Why is it specious?
The only analogy from one to the other is a person dying.  That's it.
::)

die a terrible three-week death of dehydration.


You have just pointed out my major problem with this case.  Dying by starvation is a horrible way to die.  Just because she is in a vegetative state, who's to say she can't feel anything.  My grandmother died of the flu...her last few days she couldn't eat or drink.  She basically starved to death.  They gave her morphine patches for the pain because her muscles deteoriated and her bones just ground together.  This is what Mrs. Schiavo has to look forward to if they remove the tube.  It is too awful to imagine.

It couldn't be an easy decision to make either way.  I feel for those who have to make it.

Thought this was a topic for the death penalty, not Euthenasia