Muhammad executed. Film at 11.

[Serafina]

If you are going to isolate a guy, just terminate him. It's really straightforward, and an easy and very clear-cut bar for when the death penalty is appropriate. If someone is still willing and capable of homicidal behaviour in a 24/7 total surveillance prison and therefore is literally so dangerous they can never be around anyone else, ever, even in such closely monitored confines as that, then they are not a part of human society and should be mercifully shot / decapitated for their own good.

The argument "human beings need other human beings to be humans" or "...to function properly" falls apart that a certain people voluntarily confine themself to isolation from all other human beings and can still function properly (altough the social skills will lack for obvious reasons).

Where do you want to draw the line, Marina? Is "zero contact" enough justification for a "mercifull exectution"? How about people that are unable to interact with other people - say, due to being totally crippled?

As wrong as a death penalty may be, at least it follows a rule of law - you need to bypass a certain amount of guilt to be executed. And we still perceive (and treat) them as human beings).
I see no such clear line with your reasoning - unless you can show a clear treshold where a human being can be viewed as "not human" (as with abortion/fetuses, where this is easy).

Call it a slippery slope if you like, but stamping a human life as "no longer worth living" and calling for an execution due to this is both immoral and dangerous, since it is an purley arbitary line. Only a individual can decide this for him/herself and not a generalized rule.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would certainly consider diseases like ALS as grounds for compassionate euthanasia--were it not for the fact that technology has already allowed people in the terminal stages to resume semi-normal functioning (through direct brain-pattern control of computers, a very primitive but initial step toward cybernetic integration). Nothing chills me more, as a fate worse than death.

But let's look at it objectively, that human beings are social creatures, and those who cannot function around others, are inherently broken--the mere absence of others does not merely cause observed psychosis in sustained confinement, like on Japan's death row, but is shown to do so in other primates and causes permanent mental dysfunction. I can go through and find and cite studies if you want, though I believe the principles are generally well-established. The human psyche is simply adapted to having people around. Furthermore we can all agree that sustained, forced isolation is a cruel and unusual punishment when it's involuntary.

The issue at hand was the suggesting that we let prisoners who would have to be put into total isolation, modern US "Supermax" conditions due to their violence, instead choose to die... The problem being that if we put them into those conditions, how can they make any kind of choice at all? We're torturing them until they've been driven mad by doing so. We cannot put anyone in those circumstances to begin with who is sane.

And that is the key qualifier. Someone whose brain is sufficiently altered in function from baseline humanity as to find human companionship unnecessary, should not be in a prison or on death row. We have places called mental hospitals for those individuals.

[Serafina]

"Let them die" is acceptable - it's called suicide.
"Kill them in mercy" is not - you can not make such a decision for another person, ESPECIALLY on ground that might be terryfing to you (isolation) but are evidently not to everyone (hermites do it out of their own free will).
If we are talking about immense pain and inevitable death, then we can discuss - but even under these circumstances, if the individual is able to communicate, the decision MUST be its own.

But let's look at it objectively, that human beings are social creatures, and those who cannot function around others, are inherently broken--the mere absence of others does not merely cause observed psychosis in sustained confinement, like on Japan's death row, but is shown to do so in other primates and causes permanent mental dysfunction. I can go through and find and cite studies if you want, though I believe the principles are generally well-established. The human psyche is simply adapted to having people around. Furthermore we can all agree that sustained, forced isolation is a cruel and unusual punishment when it's involuntary.

"mental dysfuntions" are irrelevant. A lot of people have mental disfunctions and can live their lives - and be happy with them.
In order to mean anything, you must show that these mental dysfunctions make living unbearable, due to immense pain (pyschological pain/"discomfort" included).

The issue at hand was the suggesting that we let prisoners who would have to be put into total isolation, modern US "Supermax" conditions due to their violence, instead choose to die... The problem being that if we put them into those conditions, how can they make any kind of choice at all? We're torturing them until they've been driven mad by doing so. We cannot put anyone in those circumstances to begin with who is sane.

How is that a problem? It is not as if we render them mute.
A lot of people have a problem with the possiblity that a person might WANT to die - suicide is normally seen as an irrational, spontaneus act. This is of course true in most cases, but there are also circumstances where it is a rational, well-considered choice. This would be such a circumstance.
It does not even require that anyone kills the prisoner - you merely have to provide the means. Heck, make it an official possibiltiy - i can not consider anything wrong with it, as long as enough checks and balances are in place.

And that is the key qualifier. Someone whose brain is sufficiently altered in function from baseline humanity as to find human companionship unnecessary, should not be in a prison or on death row. We have places called mental hospitals for those individuals.

Well, yes and no. There are propably a lot of individuals that would profit from such treatment - we might not be able to ever release them, but it might improve their lives.
On the other hand, a lot of serial killers are beyond hope. Putting them into a mental hospital would not only be a waste of resources - and propably even a form of torture (it has been done in the GDP, at least partially by psychatrists who really meant well.)

Fazit:
I opppose the death penatly. Of course, that means that we must do something else with these people.
The first option should be a closed, mental facility, IF we can be reasonably sure that it is not too dangerous for the personell.
The second step (since it is unlikely that a lot of them can be rehabilitated) should be isolation.
We are talking about people (such as serial killers) who already lack attachemnt to other people - being isolated will not harm them as much as a normal person.
On the issue of suicide (of the prisoners): It is a human right to decide about ones own body. This includes the decison to die. There is no reason to deny them this right (expect revenge-driven hate). Therefore, we should not deny them this right.

However, proposing a "mercy kill" can NOT be justified - this would be a death penalty by another name, and even worse, since you do not justify it with their crimes but rather with their personality.

[Broomstick]

I would certainly consider diseases like ALS as grounds for compassionate euthanasia--were it not for the fact that technology has already allowed people in the terminal stages to resume semi-normal functioning (through direct brain-pattern control of computers, a very primitive but initial step toward cybernetic integration). Nothing chills me more, as a fate worse than death.

Marina, just because it scares the hell out of YOU does not mean that someone else would find it intolerable - or do you think we should have mercy killed Stephen Hawking a few decades ago?

Coincidentally, on another message board I frequent we just welcomed a new poster who has been living for 10 years with locked in syndrome who claims to find enjoyment in his current life situation. Of course, having family support makes a huge difference for him.

Always, always, always the decision to end life in medical situations should be up to the patient whenever possible, and we must err on the side of caution. I'd rather sustain an empty shell for awhile while we make sure there is truly no one home rather than rush to judgment. As does being able to communicate by some means.

[CmdrWilkens]

Having lived through this and watching as folks became paranoid about leaving their homes from the sheer level of terror that the unfocused killing of disconnected innocents fed I shed no tears for his death. In general I find he fits in to my operating thesis on the death penalty which has always been that there are simply folks who have passed beyond the pale. Some crimes are by their nature, motivation, and result so heinous as to deny a person the right to continue to live amongst even other convicted criminals. The state has for almost as long as its existence sought to monopolize the right to determine when and under what circumstances human life may be taken. The death penalty is, in that view, an appropriate tool to maintain human civilization at the cost of those who have by their actions removed themselves from its membership.

That having been said far too often the standard used to determine what qualifies as such excess is sorely lacking in rigor and that worries me. In this case, however, there is negligible doubt at most and the nature of the actions so heinous in their disruption of the entire community that the punishment is fitting.