Hacker News Reader

Comment by 13of40 | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting question whether a person in his position has a right to commit suicide.

No, not really, that doesn't seem like an interesting question at all. Can you convince me otherwise? It seems obvious to me that while a right to commit suicide might exist typically, somebody imprisoned is obviously not entitled to it. We restrict many rights when we imprison people, and I see no reason why the 'right to commit suicide' should not be one of them. Allowing such a man to kill himself denies his victims, some of whom may yet be unidentified, to opportunity to resolve the matter in a satisfactory way.

All other concerns aside, this seems pretty unenforceable without going to some ridiculous extremes.

Preventing suicide is typically reasonably easy; suicide-proof smocks exist for this reason. Obviously you don't threaten a prisoner with criminal penalties for attempting suicide, that would be really stupid. Rather, you take measures to prevent the possibility.

It's easy on relatively short term. But for anything long term wouldn't it become cruel and unusual punishment? Not to mention very expensive. With no obvious and immediate reason to do this the logistics and image of this would be a nightmare.

> No, not really, that doesn't seem like an interesting question at all.

You say that, yet you went through the trouble of writing a reply that ponders this exact question: At what point does suicide become morally acceptable?

I do think it is an interesting question. I'd go the way of saying: If you still have serious responsibilities (as in this case), it is immoral.

It's worth noting that suicide used to be a serious offense - or even a capital offense, ironically.

I can think of many situations in which suicide is morally acceptable. I'd be very critical of anybody who asserts otherwise, that would be a much more interesting conversation to have, if only because I think I could really lay into anybody who disagreed with me on that matter. Whether prisoners should be able too is less interesting, so far I've not seen a compelling argument for permitting it. It seems like a perversion of justice to allow it.

When I say "right", I don't mean what's currently granted to him by our Rube Goldberg justice system, I mean the inalienable rights of any sentient being. I've met people who think you should be able to punch out any time regardless of your situation, people who think you're responsible to get your affairs in order first, people who think it's a sin regardless, etc. This guy was in a unique situation because his estate isn't going to suffer (maybe they'll have to pay a lawyer to figure out who gets the sacks of cash) and even if he got acquitted somehow his reputation and ability to move in the circles he's accustomed to are destroyed. Would you agree that if he happened to be innocent he had a right to commit suicide? (I'll take your silence just now as a yes or at least a maybe. :b) So how about if he was guilty? Does he have the right to kill himself after conviction? How about if he donated $100,000,000 to an anti human trafficking charity, but dodged trial? Like I said, it's an interesting, nuanced question.

> inalienable rights

Which is such a stupid phrase because most other 'inalienable rights are removed when you're incarcerated, thus they clearly aren't inalienable.

By that logic, people in concentration camps don't have basic human rights.

"Inalienable" means it can't be removed. That's different from whether or not someone respects the right.

We restrict the right to some freedoms, but do we restrict the right of autonomy within the person. You may not be able to do things as you wish, but can you restrict or legislate that away? Nuance might include the reasoning - suicide to 'avoid consequences', or depression (and of course the confluence of multiple reasons and / or benefits).

Somewhat related, though tangential - there are countries that do not punish for prison escapes or attempts. You will be put back in jail if caught, and circumstances might be changed to mitigate risk, but the underlying reason is "a fundamental human desire is to be free, and we cannot (additionally) punish for acting upon that desire".

I read through this whole despicable thread to find an interesting comment. I can't imagine having the mentality of taking advantage of other people to satisfy personal desires and the enabling of others to do the same.

To your point, I don't think I would live very much longer than ~10 years in prison; it's unconscionable. It's also interesting in the context of this administration's allowing for the death penalty at the federal level, with some complaints about "cruel and unusual punishment" flying around as a result.

Some religions argue suicide is a sin that sends one to eternal hell.

Lots of interesting ideas surrounding this ugly chapter, the least of which is the conspiracy theories. Epstein was never a credible witness, and would not have talked anyway. There is an underlying theme of revenge (rather than justice) in some of these comments that makes me uncomfortable.

We need to get his victims very good therapy so they can heal from their traumatic experiences.

I don't think suicidal people much care about the legal or moral judgements of others. Unless you're talking about removing all means of suicide and forcefully keeping people alive.

> I don't think suicidal people much care about the legal or moral judgements of others.

This is untrue. From what we can tell suicidal people care deeply about what other people think.

Do you mean more deeply than the average person?

Morally and legally? From what we can tell suicidal individuals often care "what other people think" in the vein of social acceptability. He ran with a crowd that flaunted a disregard for legality and moral compunction. In this case, I would not believe his suicidal attempt (not attempts) had any consideration for moral or legal ramification.

Which of his two attempts are you denying?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com