Tony Nicklinson condemned to life of torture – by British High Court

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Tony Nicklinson is a law abiding man who has done no wrong. After a stroke, his life became “pure torture”. He is locked into his body, fully lucid, unable to move anything but his eyes and part of his face, totally dependent on others to take care of him.

Human Rights obsess with the rights of criminals. It is of great concern if a murderous felon takes 5 minutes to die, suffers for 5 minutes when put to death. But if a honest, law abiding man is forced to a few decades of torture, of life and suffering against his will,  that is nobody’s concern. No animal would ever be forced or allowed to suffer in such cruel inhumane ways.

Inducing such a “locked-in syndrome” in a murderer, for 30 years, would be a much harsher punishment then swift death penalty with 2 minute death. It would be worse then 30 years in a well kept orderly prison. Putting a high cost on society and family to support the involuntary suffering is even more cruel, as cruel as medieval inquisition’s practice to bill the cost of torture to the victim and his family.

Robert Kurzban  describes how Human Society and religion have a tendency to interfere in other people’s life. With moral indignation! Philosopher *Peter Singer devotes most of his work to analyzing such life and death situations.

Thank God, there is Dignitas in Switzerland, If Tony Nicklinson has the money, if he has friendly helpers, he can travel to faraway Switzerland to end his miserable life. Hopefully those who help him on his trip will not be punished when they return to England.

The person who wishes to die meets several Dignitas personnel, in addition to an independent doctor, for a private consultation. The independent doctor assesses the evidence provided by the patient and is met on two separate occasions, with a time gap between each of the consultations.[2] Legally admissible proof that the person wishes to die is also created, i.e. a signed affidavit, countersigned by independent witnesses. In cases where a person is physically unable to sign a document, a short video film of the person is made in which they are asked to confirm their identity, that they wish to die, and that their decision is made of their own free will, without any form of coercion. Dignitas 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Tony-Nicklinson-right-to-dieThe court is formally right: it is up to lawmakers to decide on changing the laws.

Declaring the law unconstitutional would be a way out of the legal dilemma. It is sad how courts and society force people to suffer a torturous life.

We have written a about the right to die. As a Libertarian, I wish intelligent adult people could decide their own fate.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Tony Nicklinson condemned to life of torture – by British High Court” »
Tony Nicklinson condemned to life of torture – by British Hi… » continues here »

Share

Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.

Indefinite detention for possession of photos ok’d by Supreme Court.  But violent Robbers must be freed after their term is over. Strange justice.

People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[…]

“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37192279

So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street. The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders  only?

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said
there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0’s and 1’s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?

So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.” »
Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. B… » continues here »

Share

Supreme Court rules against networks on indecent speech

The commission formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal.

The changes became known as the “Golden Globes Rule,” for singer Bono’s 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase “really, really, f—ing brilliant.”


All quotes  from http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/28/supreme.court.indecent.speech/

This not an example of profound human stupidity. It is even understandable that some want to protect their kids from foul language.

Nevertheless, the “Golden Globe Rule” seems to be going overboard.
This is just an amusing example of exaggerated dogmatic conservativism. It must be quite expensive to have all live television programs delayed a few seconds, so that professional who dedicates his live to beeper-button-pressing can bleep out any indecent word that could possibly be spoken.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! More about Indecent Language on Radio (with indecent Video) »
Supreme Court rules against networks on indecent speech » continues here »

Share