Philip Nitschke comments re- Bryant

Just saw in the paper that Philip Nitschke has been calling for Martin Bryant to be allowed to top himself, as the government would never release him and didn't want to rehabilitate him.
The crushing question for me, being liberal of nature, was thus;
Should we allow this mongrel to take the easy way out and top himself or should we keep him going in a state of utter isolation and despair for the term of his natural life just to punish the ba$tard?
I would opt for the latter as I think he needs to be punished more than just ending his miserable existance.
Perhaps I'm not that liberal after all :?

The memorial at Port Arthur does not name the person that was responsible.

The logic? That history should not record the person, he's done nothing to be remembered for. Remember the act, and it's victims, let the perpetrator fade away into time. At all costs, avoid him becoming a folk hero.

Nitschke doesn't have the decency to do that. Rather, he's using the notoriety of said person to publicise his own agenda.

The guilty person has been tried, found guilty, and has been sentenced in accordance with the laws of this country. End of story.

Now if we were to allow Nitschke to take a dose of his own medicine, we wouldn't have to worry about this sort of nonsense ever again.

Cheers,

P
:wink:

I don't know that keeping him alive and isolated or letting him do himself in is going to accomplish all that much. Reason being this nutter is 'damaged goods' from what I understand.

Take someone with a similar history, Julian Knight. That one has nothing fundamentally wrong upstairs, but still did something pretty horrendous. Keeping him locked forever and completely isolated would send him nuts, which would be fine by me. Rehab is a waste of effort, and letting him go/topping himself is an insult to his victims. So is letting him 'better himself' through whatever means.

Bryant does seem to have something wrong with the wiring upstairs (I am not a shrink, nor play one on TV but mum and dad are both nuthouse nurses), and for that reason there isn't much that is going to make a lick of frickin difference to him one way or the other.

One option I toyed with while reading this was to let him out with the general prison population, with strict instructions that he is not to be permanently disfigured nor killed. But even that is not a great idea since you are asking folks who are of questionable stability to carry out your dirty work in your stead. He would last maybe a week. A pretty horrible week, but he wouldn't survive for long.

That, and you give someone in there an instant reputation as the guy who did it. Try holding them accountable? I don't think it would be possible. Give them a medal, the other side would kick up a fuss.

Short version of all that is that I don't know the answer, other than he should have been given a frontal lobotomy when he was yet to be captured or strung up within a week of being found guilty in court. Too late for either now. :(

The port arther killer is apparently a zombie that has no concept of reality. :)

haha I am in the euthenase Bryant camp. Cept dont give him a choice, just kill him off. It's waste of $$ keeping him alive for life. No one benefits and if hes wans to die, let him, or help him to do it. Just put an end to the whole sorry saga of Martyn Bryant.

The only problem with your solution Schtoo is that there's a chance he'll become a hero and do quite well for himself in the general population. I'm thinking of one the local 'lifers', a creep who was a member of a group of serial paedophiles that tortured, raped and killed teenage boys. In prison, he is a hero and leads a rather select lifestyle (according to those paragons of honesty and virtuous reporting, This Day Tonight :C),

You can't assume that scum will be treated badly by the prison population because the prison population, despite all of them being 'innocent', is composed mostly of scum - yes, I do realise it's possible for a good man to screw up and wind up in prison, but that's not the norm, the norm is serial offending and in prison, it's all about power and how you weild it.

Keep Bryant safe in his little cell and let him become a zombie - isolation and lack of freedom, although they don't sound like much to us outside, are the greatest punishment we can give these creeps, and it's not relieved by the comforts (such as televisions) that people often complain about.

As for letting him top himself, Nitschke just blew whatever credibility he might have had. Midge got it spot on.

Richard

I reckon shoot the bastard... save the tens of thousands it costs every year and put to a better use like a good charity(like beyond blue).

Good points are being made by both sides, so I'll add my 2 cents worth.

The question I ask is, Why are we spending so much money on this scum??. Chuck him in a dingy little cell (like they have in Bali etc), throw
him a blanket and give him minimal slops to keep his sorry butt alive.
If all the so called do-gooders, cringe and cry about his treatment, show them how he killed those two little girls, and then see if what they're asking, is really justified.

I'm not sticking up for Bryant. He did what he did and was convicted according to the law.

If Bryant is genuinely mentally incompetent it says more about us as a society that let him get to that stage than it does about him. You only have to look what happened back in the 80's after the half-arsed "implementation" of the Richmond Report when mental institutions were emptied but no alternatives were provided. Of course, there are few votes in mental health.

Why do I get so steamed about this? I used to work at Olivetti in the late 80's at 80 William Street in Sydney. Just up the hill from the Mathew Talbot hostel for homeless men which is run by the St Vincent de Paul Society. An organisation I greatly admire for doing work with people that society really doesn't care all that much about, if at all.

Anyway, during that time, you could see the gradual change from the usual clientele of the hostel from the old lags with drinking problems that had made them homeless to younger men who were clearly struggling with psychotic illnesses and were off their medication.

A Society is judged by the way it treats its lowest members.

To my way of thinking there are only two alternatives in cases like this.

Stick to the current system as it stands, and give every prisoner the full benefit and protection under the law. That is no euthanasia crap or vigilante stuff.

Or

Bring back the death penalty for certain crimes. Full stop.

If we had a referendum I'd vote for convicted cop killers, mass murderers and terrorist type killers, all to get the chop. No it's not the sign of a healthy civilised society, but unfortunatly we have to live in a less than a perfect world.

Cheers
Bill.

My problem with this is that it confuses the euthanasia issue with the capital punishment issue.

As I understand it, the argument in favour of euthanasia is that sane people with terminal conditions which will lead to degrading personal circumstances should be entitled to terminate their life voluntarily before experiencing those degrading circumstances.

Clearly someone who is not only mentally disturbed but sufficiently mentally disturbed to be categorised as unfit to plead guilty or not guilty in relation to an alleged crime committed by him and who, accordingly, it is held indefinitely in an institution for the criminally insane, is not a person to whom the benefit of euthanasia should be extended. That person misses out on the ground of sanity.

The mentally ill need first to be treated medically and then, if they are likely to be a danger to the community or themselves, put under close supervision in combination with their medical treatment. They should not be let loose to inflict harm on others or even on themselves, no matter how expensive the supervision and treatment may be.

For me, the real issue with Martin Bryant is how someone who was clearly so mentally ill that he was unable to function properly in the community could have been released into the care of his mother who was clearly incapable of handling him.

give ME the gun and legal right. end of story.

I WILL sleep at night... I promise.

I vote Zed!

He has attempted suicide on numerous occasions which shows he is trying to escape his own miserable existance.
I vote to leave him where he is.

JMK and Mark Harrisons' posts clearly outline the real issue.:(

I will second that.....

2 to the body. 1 to the head. Problem solved.

If they are caught with the smoking gun or bloody knife in their hot little hands then there should be no argument at all

Death Penalty = No Repeat Offenders

MY thoughts on Martin Bryant's suicide? I say let him do it BUT first we need to have a royal commission into the whole affair. The records should be unsealed and all evidence presented in open court.
He was never tried or found guilty. He pleaded guilty after first pleading not guilty. There are a large number of unanswered questions about this whole affair that need to be made public.I dont believe there was even a coroners inquest.
Yet we had a coroners inquest etc for the Kempsey bus crash which also killed a large number. And now we are having not one but three investigation into the Kerang train crash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob38S

If they are caught with the smoking gun or bloody knife in their hot little hands then there should be no argument at all

Death Penalty = No Repeat Offenders

---

My research, both as a historian and a practising lawyer, into the death penalty is that the main effect that it has is to reduce the conviction rate - juries (ie ordinary people like you (and maybe me, except I'm not allowed to be a juror) don't convict if there is any shadow of doubt as tot he guilt of the accused. Individuals don't like to think that they have blood on their hands unless the guilt of the accused is clear beyond any doubt.

So if you want murderers to be punished, don't impose the death sentence.

Think of it this way - 14 years in gaol is much more punishment than a not guilty verdict because a juror (or 3, if "majority" verdicts are allowed) wasn't so sure that he or she was prepared to see the accused killed.

Good point Pedro.
I agree with you.

There are far too many unanswered questions.
And the firearms owners of Australia have been made the scapegoats by Jackboot Johnny.