Torture has been the subject of a few blog posts here and at the blogs of some of my electric friends of late and the main focus of my posts on that topic has been to try to tease out just what constitutes torture. Now our own Dr Death, Philip Nitschke, thinks that keeping Martin Bryant in jail and preventing him from committing suicide in fact constitutes “torture”.
Australia’s worst mass murderer should be allowed to die following several attempts to kill himself in his prison cell, euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke says.
Martin Bryant is serving 35 life sentences for the 1996 killings of 35 people at Tasmania’s historic Port Arthur penal settlement, in the world’s worst mass murder by a lone gunman.
Bryant has made at least five suicide attempts in Tasmania’s Risdon Prison and has been treated at hospital twice this year after slashing himself with disposable razor blades.
Tasmania’s Director of Prisons Graeme Barber earlier this year confirmed that on one occasion Bryant secreted a blade in his body and later recovered it to slash his neck.
The murderer has also swallowed a rolled-up tube of toothpaste.(source)
Sadly Phillip is completely serious. I for one think that it is entirely right and correct that Martin Bryant spends a very long time in prison and I think that justice demands that he should be prevented from committing suicide and achieving an easy way out. For as much as some people like to think that prison is all about reforming felons we should not loose sight of the fact that it has another function, and that is to provide just punishment for those who commit evil acts. Bryant meets the criteria of a person for whom prison is for punishment and I for one think that he should never be allowed the mercy of an early death.
Filed under: Australian Politics, Ethical questions, Justice, Law, human rights, the Law
On the issue of torture, did you see Four Corners last night?
Apparently, while the US aren’t able to justify any sort of torture beyond the marginal cases, it’s entirely permissible to outsource torture to people who are willing to do it, like Egypt. And I’m not talking sleep deprivation or walking around with a nappy on. I mean the unequivocal stuff: electrodes on genitals, hammering fingers and removing of fingernails with pliers, seeing other prisoners beaten to death, kicking the soles of feet until they’re too swollen to walk on, anal probing, the threat of rape by trained dogs and being left in a sensory deprivation box that’s slightly too small for you for indefinite periods.
No Jangari
I did not see that, I did my time for the cause by watching last weeks Four Corners.
And as much as you would probably want me to defend such things I don’t however just consider that the groups and forces that have created the need for such things still make anything done by the Yanks seem rather small beans by comparison.
None the less that is off topic here so how about an opinion about Martin Bryant which IS the topic of this post.
I’m confused.
“I for one think that he should never be allowed the mercy of an early death.”
But I thought you were all for capital punishment? You are always commenting about how you think terrorists should “swing” or “do the noose dance” or whatever that barbaric phrase was.
So – if death (be it by suicide or by State execution) is a cop out, therefore, execution of terrorists is a cop out. Saddam got off easily.
Isn’t it ?
(FYI, and so you don’t accuse me of avoiding the question blah blah – I don’t think that Bryant being prevented from committing suicide is torture. He should stay locked up for a long long time).
Olivia
The workings of justice have never been amenable to one-size fits all approach.
Now I invite you to explain why it is NOT torture to detain martin Bryant indefinitely but it is to do so for a Jihadist terrorist.
I thought that you were done with commenting here.
A slow day at work is it?
(1) You don’t attempt to guess other people’s real names in here, so why do you insist on pretending that you “know my name”? I don’t see you doggedly making up names for other posters ?
Weird behaviour.
(2)Who said it was torture to detain a jihadist terrorist indefinitely? A life sentence for a convicted terrorist who has been personally responsible for many deaths, who has been tried according to valid and just forms of law? Completely appropriate. No argument from me !
(3) I find your site amusing. I find YOU amusing. Why would I deny myself that pleasure?
(4) “Slow day at work, huh?” – mrow! Bit rough coming from someone who doesn’t even have a job!
Olivia
I know the real names of several other people who post here and I choose to respect their use of a Nom de plume because they deserve it. You on the other hand have posted here under at least two different usernames and you have been rather less than good mannered so if you want to continue to play in my sandpit you will have to put up with my calling you by what I am pretty sure is your real name.
When you provide me with a real email address I may reconsider this decision but until then live with it or go away.
*yawn*
Whatever, Iain.
If it makes you feel tough and manly and interlecktual, you can call me anything you want, say I work for whoever you want, insinuate that I believe whatever you want.
It’s not like anyone actually takes you seriously.
I do so love the way that you have avoided adressing the difficult position you have put yourself in with this thread (ie – declaring death a cop out, which means that the minute you harp on about how terrorists deserve to be executed, I will remind you of this moment. With great relish).
Yawn away as much as you like Olivia as I have added you to my moderated list; and you can post as many comments as you please but no one other than Moi will see them unless I deem them fit for publication. My patience with you is at an end.
Censorship cures all society’s ills, eh?
Jangari
I don’t think so, but how many personal attacks would you endure before having to pull the pin on a commenter at your blog?
I don’t ask for personal attacks at my blog.
Did you know this post got cited in Crikey’s Blogwatch today?? Congrats.
It did?
Wow do you you have a link LE?
Shoot the bastard, Bryant that is, then toss him into the sea, to feed the sharks, help out the environment and all that.
I don’t mind him just suffering till the end of his days, but the only way you can be 100% sure that some leftist will not weasel this fellow out of jail when no one’s looking is to put a bullet(s) in his head, Bryant that is.
Found it, now that is a thrill
Jangari
you are avoiding the question.
On your post – I tend to agree that Bryant should not be allowed to commit suicide. First, part of Bryant’s punishment is that he serves his time.
Secondly, if the government starts allowing suicide by prisoners, it could lead to all sorts of legal complications.
Euthanasia is something different – if you’ve got a terminal, incurable disease, you’re going to die shortly anyway, so why not go in your own time surrounded by your loved ones while you’re still compos mentis? But allowing people who otherwise wouldn’t die for a long time to commit suicide…just seems like trouble to me.
Yes L E
It is far too east to forget that part of the Raison Detre of a prison is to punish and when I was at Port Arthur only weeks after his wicked deed there were these photocopied sign every where asking visitors not to ask the staff about that day in April. Even those who were not killed were horribly traumatised.
This was a horrendous crime that can never be forgiven It was terribly ironic that it happened in a place that was just beginning to recover from the brutality of its past.
I am rather ambivalent about euthanasia per see. but I do appreciate that there may come a time when an end to suffering can be justified but the easier we make it the easier it will be for individuals to be coerced or encouraged to prematurely end their lives “For the sake of the family” or even murdered to get them out of the way. Even the most major league checks and balances can be overcome or subverted…
I think it’d be more worthwhile trying to prevent young aboriginal men from committing suicide in custody.
Yes Iain, I did avoid the question, because I envisage not receiving any abusive comments on my blog by not soliciting them. Since I plan not to ever get any, I can use the politician’s trick of avoiding answering any hypothetical, purely because it’s hypothetical. But, I’ll tell you that if a comment contained nothing pertinent to a conversation while containing something offensive, I wouldn’t have any qualms about removing it.
Jangari
Aboriginal men who try to top themselves is not the topic here.
Well I found what Olivia was saying in several comments offensive and I gave her generous opportunities to repent, which she declined to do. And as much as you think that your blogging is innocuous and immune from commenter malice, no one who blogs for a long time will escape having nasty comments. So I am glad that you recognise that in the end a blog author will have to act and ban or disallow certain people and their abuse. That my friend is not censorship it is good housekeeping.
Cheers