Should Martin Bryant be permitted to euthanize himself?

Show all answers

Kate

No.

After murdering and injuring all those innocent people, he has a responsibility to serve his sentence exactly as it was handed down.
He has no right to cop out and take the easy way out after what he's done.
I support the right for people with long term chronic illnesses, and terminally ill patients to take their own lives. But someone who is trying to commit suicide only to escape a lengthy prison sentence is only refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

"Martin John Bryant (born 7 May 1967) murdered 35 people and injured 37 others in the Port Arthur massacre, a killing spree in Tasmania in 1996. He is currently serving 35 life sentences in Hobart's Risdon Prison."

ll_jenny_ll here

I am in two minds re Martin Bryant ( also include with him Julian Knight, Ivan Milat, and a couple of others ) ...

On one hand I believe he should be made to serve his life in prison, but with only the basic necessities of life being supplied to him ..basic food, shelter and clothing, NO TELEVISION etc . I'll be completely honest ... I want him to have an insufferably miserable existance.. I want him to BEG for his life to end. and yeah if that makes me a horrible person so be it .. I just remember Allanah and Madeline Mikac and the other 33 people)

Then on the other hand , I want him gone, i want him not to be breathing the same air as people who have lost loved ones due to his actions.. I don't want the victim's family's taxes to be spent on his food.. I want him dead..

I am sorry if this offends people.. but the events of that day are just so fresh in my mind ..the names the faces .. the people who knew victims.. some people are just blights on humanity and Martin Bryant is such a person.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I think some of us have been a little harsh to judge some of the other people here.. like garypayton for example... I don't think they knew who he was or what he did and that is why they have answered sympathetically re him ( ie saying if he was suffering he should be allowed to ) ... had they known I am sure their answers would have differed.

tentofield

If he wants to commit suicide, he will. Many people in gaol have done so. If he attempted suicide and failed, he would be placed on suicide watch to prevent him trying again. While suicide is not illegal any more, helping someone do it is. Bryant is mentally ill and although his crime was horrendous, he was not totally responsible.

People are sent to gaol as punishment not for punishment. The punishment is deprivation of liberty. Brutality and torture have no place in gaols.

molly

No he is obviously suffering as he should be why should he be allowed what people who dieing of cancer and other incurable diseases cant have .
If anyone thinks he should be out of his misery just think of all the families still living without their love ones its appropriate that he should serve out the "Term of his Natural Life" in Tasmania its just pity we couldn't lock him up in Port Aurthur jail 150 years ago.

angelsilverstar

No. Prison sentences are there so that those who commit such terrible crimes are made to suffer, so let him suffer.

Missing Link

What?.............let him off that lightly?

I understand what you're saying.

The fact is, if he really wanted to kill himself, he'd find a way.

Having him alive and pitiful is probably a better deterent to would be publicity seekers like himself than if he were gone.

I'm sure it won't be too long before he withers away and his body shuts down of its own accord.

qldtravelguru

frankyl I think it would be the best option, initailly I would put through the argument of money saved by the australian taxpayer, secondly I am of the school of thought that giving him a life no matter how bland and boring it might be in prison is more than he gave his victims, and why should he be afforded more than he gave those who he dispatched with such brutal intent.

now let me pause for a moment on the how he should be dispatched (i use that word because it is cold and impersonal just like his killings) he should have the right to choose it yes but should not have the terms of when and how, that should be put to the victims families should they wish to extract vengence no matter how small or trivial

closure is the point here- offer closure to those who were effected by his actions, I could not think about how robbed i would feel for him choosing how, when and where he dies when my loved one who he took so violently had no such choice.

I know my view is extreme but we arent talking about a one time petty crook we are talking about a phsycopathic killer one that should be dispactched to where ever it is the dead go, hopefully to rot in the ground as worm food for eternity and then some.

cheers and while i assume that many wont agree with this view i hope they understand where i am coming from and my reasons/ though process of how i got here

redcirce

According to wikipedia: "Euthanasia (from Ancient Greek: ÎµÏ…Î¸Î±Î½Î±ÏƒÎ¯Î±, "good death"[I]) is the practice of ending the life of a terminally ill person in a painless or minimally painful way, for the purpose of limiting suffering."

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), Martin Bryant isn't terminally ill.

If he wants to kill himself, this would be suicide; not euthanasia.

In which case, I think it would be wrong for anyone to provide him the tools with which he could kill himself, regardless of his past.

Richo Fev

No, no.....NO!

He should be permitted to suffer in isolation for the rest of his miserable life, and think about what he did.

As a taxpayer, I`m more than happy that my taxes are paying for his unhappiness. And when he finally dies, he can burn in hell!

Spindle

Yes

Sunny 1st

Yes. Why should we pay to feed and clothe him. He's got such a major personality disorder that he probably doesn't regret anything he did, and never will, so why take the chance that he'll be let out one day and do it again. Let him do away with himself, the sooner the better.

fanta

no the familys of the people he shot should be aloud to do him

wtg_ib

NO leave him to suffer with what he did

Sparky5115

I say NO.

But I think the families of the victims should be allowed to vote on it.

I'm still extremely annoyed that the Granny Killer got off so lightly by committing suicide when he was slowly and painfully dying of cancer.

And I've got a heart bigger than most!

Elizabeth

From reading the answer above possibly you should have explained who Martin Bryant is.

Martin Bryant (born May 7 1967) murdered 35 people and injured 37 others in the Port Arthur Massacre, in killing spree in Tasmania, Australia in 1996.

I don't know why you asked this question, but I say let him rot in prison for life.
On second thoughts, why should we have to pay to keep him in prison. Let him commit suicide.

Boomer

I do not know who this person is, but if it is his choice to perform euthanasia himself, then it is his choice. I do not know why he wants to do this because as I said, I do not know who he is. However, there could be consequences in the after life is there is one.

I do not believe that suicide is sanctified by the church, but his situation may be exceptional. If this is the case and he has accepted Jesus as his savior, then perhaps his choice will be one that God will forgive, but I am not sure about that.

I would prefer to know more about this person and why he wants to do this. I think that there are exceptions as I have stated to traditional rules of the scriptures, but they were written by men with their own intent and prejudices. If Martin believes that his own demise is his only choice, then it could be that his soul will be saved. I simply do not have enough information to make an informed decision on my opinion.

garypayton

If he is physically suffering too much, then yes.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: