convicts facing a possible death sentence should be able to kill themselves

Con makes a couple of points that needed to be elaborated: first, how is someone on death row dying by suicide take away “our civil rights?” Please specify how a death row inmate that dies through assisted suicide an infringement that “leads to us having our civil rights taken away from us?” What civil rights are you talking about specifically? Perhaps you meant the victims of crimes are somehow denied justice or rights if prisoners are allowed to opt for assisted suicide. But this is already true since prisoners will opt for the death penalty instead of life in prison. Here is an ABC News story on exactly this issue: ___________________________________________________________________ According to the Death Penalty Information Center, a group opposed to capital punishment, Passaro's execution was one of seven "volunteer" executions in 2002, where death-row prisoners relinquished their remaining appeals and opted to be put to death. More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992.[1] ____________________________________________________________________ So, what Con is suggesting already happens in a number of ways, just as a function of the legal system. Pro (1): would you rather let a death murder receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care and a transplant at taxpayers expense or let them die? Con ignores several realities, including that prisoners receive medical care, even transplants while on death row. Here is a second ABC News report exemplifies this reality—ultimately complicating Con’s stance from the last round. Facts the person, crimes, and treatment Horacio Reyes-Camarena was convicted of murdering, specifically repeatedly stabbing two women to death. While on death row, the state of Oregon paid “a reported $121,000 a year” from the state to keep him on dialysis and then a “prison doctor determined he was a good candidate for a kidney transplant.”[2] Not only will Horacio receive this treatment but according to ABC he “could be placed on a transplant waiting list ahead of others who did not commit any crimes…” To Con’s point about victims of crimes and their rights taken away, what do victims think about providing healthcare to a murder. The report provides an answer: ___________________________________________________________________ There's no doubt — there's no debate — that people have lost their lives while murderers have received transplants, said Dudley Sharp, resource director of Justice For All, a Houston-based victims' rights group that supports the death penalty. It is unconscionable that we would put those who have not contributed anything to society but have cost society millions of dollars ahead of hardworking citizens that are not even on the list [for transplants] because they can't afford the insurance, Sharp said. It's not fair and studies need to be done, and it's something our state legislatures need to think about. ________________________________________________________________________ Pro (2): Let’s take a concrete example: Jerry Sandusky. He is facing a life sentence in prison for raping boys. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to house a pedophile, feed a pedophile, and allow him to live? Taxpayers should not. Why protract their sentence if they want to die immediately? What is the point of prolong the life of someone like that, Pro’s position is to allow them to die if they want, it is inevitable anyway, and prolonging their lives means effectively taxpayers are paying for them to live, to eat, to be housed, to breath day after day and year after year. Ask yourself the punishment on death row is going to be death; does it matter to anyone whether a prisoner wants to die at point A rather than point B? [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com...