CAN
A PRISONER EVER MAKE A FREE CHOICE?
SYNOPSIS:
When considering life-ending decisions such as
voluntary execution,
critics often raise doubts about the capacity of prisoners to make
free choices.
Most of any prisoner's behavior is controlled by being in prison.
What could convince the skeptics that a prisoner has
made
a voluntary decision about the date of execution
and/or about donating organs after execution?
OUTLINE:
1. DETERMINISTS BELIEVE THAT NO 'CHOICES' ARE VOLUNTARY.
2. COMMON SENSE BELIEVES THAT OUR CHOICES ARE FREE.
3.
THE PRISONER WHO CHOOSES VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
WILL BE THE
MOST FREE OF ALL PRISONERS.
4. WORKABLE SAFEGUARDS FOR IDENTIFYING THE PRISONER
WHO CAN
GENUINELY MAKE A FREE CHOICE IN FAVOR
OF EXECUTION.
(1) A FORMAL, RECORDED REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
(2) TWELVE WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
(3) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AND
FRIENDS
(4) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY
(5) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM LAWYERS
WHO
HAVE
HANDLED THIS CASE
(6) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER PRISONERS
(7) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM PRISON EMPLOYEES
(8) OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPPONENTS OF THE
DEATH-PENALTY
TO TRY TO
CONVINCE THE PRISONER TO CHANGE HIS OR HER
MIND
(9) PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
(10) STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM ANY OTHER
PERSONS
(11) OTHER SAFEGUARDS SUGGESTED
BY
ANYONE
5.
PROXIES SHOULD BE APPOINTED
TO CARRY
FORWARD THE PLANS FOR EXECUTION
IN CASE THE
PRISONER LOSES MENTAL CAPACITY
BEFORE DEATH.
6.
CONCLUSION: YES, SOME PRISONERS CAN MAKE
A FREE CHOICE
FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION.
CAN
A PRISONER EVER MAKE A FREE CHOICE?
by
James Leonard Park
1.
DETERMINISTS BELIEVE THAT NO 'CHOICES' ARE VOLUNTARY.
One class of people who will never believe
that a
prisoner could make a free choice
are the philosophical
determinists.
Determinists believe that all so-called 'choices'
really emerge from prior
conditions:
For psychological reasons,
we could never have done anything different from what
we did.
There are actually different kinds and degrees of determinists
within the discussion of free
will versus determinism,
but we will not get into such abstruse matters here.
Rather, we will group all determinists together
if they basically believe that human behavior is controlled
by factors beyond the power of the individual.
Most of these determinists would also have a
different perspective
on all matters related to crime and punishment.
If human behavior is completely
determined by social conditions,
then criminals cannot be
blamed
for their behavior:
They were caused to
do what they did by external factors.
Why punish
behavior that
could not have been avoided?
For example, babies are not punished for soiling their diapers.
The processes of bodily elimination are completely natural.
Only later do we learn to dispose of our wastes in better ways.
But from the point of view of some determinists,
prison walls might still have a function similar
to
bars in a zoo:
We know that certain animals might kill members of the public
if they were allowed to roam free in the streets.
Therefore, we keep dangerous animals locked safely away,
behind bars where they can be cared for without danger to the public.
Lions and tigers are not responsible for their eating behavior.
They must have meat to
survive.
These dangerous animals are never expected to exercise free will.
And zoos are not punishment for the animals.
Neither are zoos expected to 'rehabilitate'
animals
so that they can eventually be released onto the streets.
Zoos protect the public from wild animals.
Likewise—according
to determinists—
prison
walls protect the public from criminals.
From this philosophical perspective,
people who are now prisoners never were free to avoid their 'crimes'.
Thus punishment is meaningless and rehabilitation is impossible.
Prisons merely serve to protect the public from these particular
criminals
by keeping these dangerous prisoners behind bars.
No estimate will be made here about the proportion
of the public
who are determinists as described above.
But it would probably be obvious that such people
would never believe that prisoners could make free choices while in
jail:
Criminals were not able to make free choices before imprisonment,
so why even raise the question of free choices while in prison?
Determinists
believe that 'freedom of choice' is an
illusion.
Logically, they should also believe that their own belief in determinism
is a result of their indoctrination.
In fact, the very concept of belief
is undermined by strict determinism:
There are no free beliefs: Beliefs also are an illusion.
Whatever people have in their minds has been poured into them.
2. COMMON SENSE BELIEVES THAT OUR CHOICES ARE FREE.
Most legal systems on Earth assume freedom of choice:
Human beings choose their actions and are responsible for
their deeds.
But few people believe that every act is absolutely
free.
Every human choice takes place within a social context.
And various factors surrounding us influence the choices we make.
Everyday crime and punishment make more sense
against the background of this common-sense belief in responsibility:
Most of the people who are now in prison really did the crimes
for which they were justly convicted and imprisoned.
When they were faced with their options,
they could have turned away
from the choices that put them into prison.
(They were not like a lion finding a vulnerable animal on the
savanna.)
Since criminals are really responsible for their
behavior,
it makes good sense to punish
them for the evil they have committed.
Likewise, efforts to rehabilitate
criminals also make sense:
Those who have committed crimes in the past
could possibly have done otherwise.
Moreover, at least some prisoners can decide to amend
their ways
and avoid breaking laws when they are released from prison.
3. THE PRISONER WHO
CHOOSES
VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
WILL
BE THE MOST FREE OF ALL
PRISONERS.
Opposition to voluntary execution thinks about the
average prisoner,
who probably is not very free in making any such decision.
But the prisoner who chooses a voluntary execution
will be 1 out of 1,000 prisoners.
Whatever might be true of the average prisoner
need not be true of this one
in a thousand.
Policies must necessarily be set for the majority
of any class of people.
But careful thinking can make exceptions
for the extraordinary
individual.
Thus, our focus of discussion should not be the
average prisoner.
Rather, we can stretch our minds to embrace the possibility
that there might be one
prisoner out of a thousand
who can make a truly free choice for voluntary execution.
Instead of saying "no" to all prisoners
because we believe that most
could never make any such free
decision,
we should focus on methods
of testing that will demonstrate or refute
the claim that this one
prisoner is making a voluntary decision.
4. WORKABLE
SAFEGUARDS FOR
IDENTIFYING THE PRISONER
WHO CAN GENUINELY MAKE A FREE
CHOICE
IN FAVOR OF
EXECUTION.
Whenever such a controversial practice as voluntary
execution
is even suggested, elaborate safeguards must be created
in order to convince some of the open-minded people
who were initially skeptical of the idea of a prisoner making a free
choice.
At least for people who are
open to reason,
workable safeguards can be created
to make sure that this
specific prisoner
is really making a free
choice for voluntary execution.
What kinds of evidence would be meaningful?
Dogmatic
opponents of the
death-penalty will never be convinced.
Especially those who do not believe in free will
will not be swayed by any of the safeguards suggested below.
At the opposite end of the spectrum is the prisoner himself or herself,
who is in fact choosing voluntary execution.
This prisoner knows his or her own mind and process of thought.
He or she needs no convincing at all.
But there is a large group of people
in the middle who might be
persuaded.
What testimony and documentation could sway open-minded
thinkers?
(1) A
FORMAL, RECORDED REQUEST FOR
VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
Following whatever methods of recording seem most
valid,
the prisoner makes a formal, written or recorded request for execution.
This request for death explains the background crimes
for which the prisoner has justly been found guilty and sent to prison.
The specific sentence should be mentioned in the prisoner's request,
even tho it is part of the public record.
The prisoner should explain his or her thinking
process
that is leading toward the decision in favor of a voluntary execution.
Why is this prisoner choosing a voluntary execution
rather than living out his or her natural life in prison?
Has this prisoner arranged to donate
organs after execution?
If so, reference to such documentation should be made
within the prisoner's formal request for execution.
The creation and signing of this explicit consent
for execution
should be witnessed by independent persons
whose motivations are beyond question.
And a similar record should be kept of the times and
places
where the prisoner reviewed
this request for voluntary execution
and reaffirmed his or
her determination to carry the execution
forward.
This will show that the prisoner maintained this decision
over meaningful periods of time.
Choosing voluntary execution was not a temporary obsession with
death.
If such formal requests
for execution take several different forms,
this will not be a problem.
As soon as certain authorities request a new kind of statement,
that format of affirmation can also be added to the collection.
All formal requests for death will reinforce one another,
especially since they come from different periods of time.
The prisoner has created all
requested reaffirmations
of the plan to end his or her life by voluntary execution.
(2)
TWELVE
WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR VOLUNTARY EXECUTION
Twelve
separate letters written by the hand of the
prisoner
and sent to neutral observers outside of the prison system
should be strong evidence of a free choice on the part of this prisoner.
These letters will confess to the crimes for which the prisoner was
convicted.
And they will affirm the desire to choose a voluntary execution.
(3)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND
FRIENDS
Perhaps most prisoners have little support outside
of prison walls.
But the one prisoner in a thousand who chooses voluntary execution
will have significant contacts in the outside world.
These family members and friends will know the thinking of the prisoner.
And they can write their own statements of understanding
and support.
They should put such statements into their own words,
to prove that they are not just copying each other's ideas.
Each such statement of support should begin with an
explanation
of how the writer of the statement knows the prisoner.
How long have they known each other?
Is the writer of the supportive statement convinced
that the prisoner is really making a free choice?
Does the writer of the supportive statement agree
with the decision for
voluntary
execution?
People who know the prisoner
the best
might be asked to testify that they believe that the prisoner is (or is
not)
making a free choice to end his or her life by voluntary
execution.
(4)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY
If the prisoner has any connections with organized
religion,
the professional leaders of any religious organizations
might be called upon to write their own independent affirmations
of the plans for voluntary execution.
Any such members of the clergy should explain
the background of their connections with the prisoner.
And they would be free to include any elements of their religious
beliefs
that they find relevant to this decision.
If the prisoner has no religious connections,
then other independent members of the wider community
might be called upon to fill a similar function of neutral, ethical
observers.
Distant critics of the whole idea of the
death-penalty
might be somewhat assured if they know that responsible moral leaders
have examined this decision in some detail
and have agreed to support voluntary execution in this case.
(5)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM LAWYERS
WHO HAVE
HANDLED THIS CASE
Every prisoner now facing either
life-imprisonment or the death-penalty
will already have deep connections with members of the legal profession,
who have probably been involved in the process of defending the prisoner
in the long legal process that has led to the
present situation.
Such legal representatives of the prisoner
should be deeply aware of the thinking of the prisoner.
And if the lawyers approve the choice of voluntary execution,
their written approval should help convince other
legal authorities
that voluntary execution in this case is a good course of action
both for the prisoner and for the
broader society.
Opponents of the death-penalty often are lawyers.
Such skeptics will be especially interested to know
that the lawyers who defended the prisoner
have now agreed that the prisoner did the crimes
for which he or she was justly convicted
and that their client is now freely choosing a voluntary execution.
Rather than serving the imposed sentence of imprisonment
—which
in some cases will be a life-sentence—
this
specific prisoner wants a voluntary execution.
(6)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER PRISONERS
Because the prisoner who is choosing voluntary
execution
might have opportunities to discuss this choice with other prisoners,
these other inmates might be in position to write statements of support.
They will recount the discussions they have had.
Perhaps they would never
choose voluntary
execution for themselves.
But they respect the free choice of the prisoner who wants
execution.
(7)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM PRISON EMPLOYEES
Perhaps the prisoner who wants to choose a voluntary
execution
has developed a relationship with the prison chaplain.
If so, this chaplain can write his or her own independent statement
recounting these discussions and evaluating the voluntariness
of the decision by the prisoner to choose a voluntary execution.
Prison counselors, educators, health-care personnel,
etc.
can all be considered as possible writers of statements of support.
But the statements of guards and wardens will need
special care,
since in less-developed countries prisoners are not making
free choices.
Are prison authorities part of a conspiracy to create the
illusion
that the prisoner 'chose' a voluntary execution?
But when such persons involved in the control of prisoners
do genuinely have something to add to the weight of evidence,
their statements can be included in the pile of testimony.
Such statements will have to be carefully written
so as to counteract the reasonable doubts of skeptics
that prison authorities might be pushing prisoners toward execution
—that
prisoners are not really choosing their own deaths.
(8)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPPONENTS OF THE DEATH-PENALTY
TO TRY TO
CONVINCE THE PRISONER TO CHANGE HIS OR HER
MIND
Let those
who disbelieve that this prisoner is making a
free choice
write to the prisoner suggesting that the choice is
not really free,
that the prisoner is being manipulated or coerced in some way.
Such attempts to change the mind of the prisoner
should also be made part of
the record of the planned execution,
just to make sure that all reasonable doubts were addressed.
The replies written by the
prisoner should also be included
with these attempts to change the decision for voluntary execution.
Face-to-face
interviews with people who are
skeptical
of the claim of a free choice might be encouraged,
at least if the interviewers are genuinely open to the possibility of
free will.
(Determinists will make no sense of such a questioning
process.)
For example, open-minded opponents of the death-penalty
might be invited to visit the prisoner in person
by means of the ordinary protocols for visiting prisoners.
Such interviews might be recorded in some meaningful ways,
in case some distant critics believe that the interviews never took
place.
And at least a summary of the results of such interviews
should become part of the execution-planning record.
Video
recordings could be made at various times and
places
with various people trying to convince the prisoner
to change the plans for voluntary
execution.
(9)
PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS
Psychological
professionals (at least those who
believe in free will)
might be asked to interview the prisoner from time to time
to see if the decision for a voluntary execution still holds firm.
Such professional evaluations should take place over at least one year,
in order to allow the prisoner plenty of time to rethink the plans for
death.
Did the prisoner go thru a period of suicidal thinking?
Is the prisoner under some kind of psychological pressure
that is resulting in a questionable 'decision' for execution?
Does the prisoner fully understand what he or she is requesting?
Is the prisoner mentally capable of making a life-ending decision?
Are there any signs that prison authorities are pushing for
execution?
The psychological professionals should answer all such
questions.
And their written reports should become permanent parts
of the
execution-planning record.
(10)
STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FROM ANY OTHER PERSONS
Each prisoner who is choosing a voluntary execution
will have a particular set of supporters.
Not all such possible persons can be mentioned here.
So the prisoner would be free to choose any other persons
who would be willing and able to write statements of support.
After voluntary executions have begun to happen,
all prisoners who are considering this choice for themselves
will be in good positions to write statements of support for one
another.
And even if some of these prisoners have already been executed,
their written statements will still be relevant.
If they have considered the
same choice for themselves,
they will be good
witnesses for the option of voluntary
execution.
Certainly public figures, especially government
officials,
will be asked by the media for their comments on voluntary execution.
Most of these people will have no special connections with the
prisoner.
But if some public figures have taken the time
to explore the facts of this particular case,
their opinions might be included in the collected statements of
support.
(11)
OTHER
SAFEGUARDS SUGGESTED BY ANYONE
Dozens of other common-sense methods
of testing the
resolve of this prisoner
can be imagined and possibly tried.
If any valid, reasonable doubts are raised,
then the process must be put 'on hold'
until those doubts are resolved.
And if there are valid doubts that can never be
resolved,
then this prisoner will be denied the choice of a voluntary
execution.
5. PROXIES SHOULD BE
APPOINTED
TO CARRY
FORWARD THE PLANS FOR EXECUTION
IN CASE THE PRISONER
LOSES
MENTAL CAPACITY BEFORE DEATH.
The prisoner who is choosing voluntary execution
should not lose this right simply because he or she loses mental powers
before the execution takes place.
Thus proxies should be appointed to carry forward the plans for
execution
if and when the prisoner can no longer re-affirm that choice.
These proxies should be chosen by the prisoner
rather than by the prison authorities.
This will allay doubts that the proxies were really just another way
to railroad the
prisoner into an unchosen execution.
Such proxies for the prisoner might be
either a single individual or a committee
of
individuals
who will collectively carry
forward the plans for execution
if the prisoner loses the psychological ability to make the final
decision.
Such proxies might be selected and certified
in ways similar to establishing proxies to make medical decisions.
The medical condition of the prisoner might
deteriorate before death.
But even if the prisoner loses clear capacity to re-affirm voluntary
execution,
the previously-affirmed determination to die by voluntary
execution
should not be compromised.
The fully-established decision of the prisoner
while the prisoner was in full possession of decision-making powers
shall prevail even beyond the period of good mental abilities.
In other words, the prisoner does not have to be
fully able to re-make the decision for death
up until the last moment of conscious life.
If and when such thought processes are compromised,
the proxies can carry
forward the plans for execution.
Everyone only needs to be convinced
that the prisoner really did make a decision for voluntary execution
several times during periods of unquestioned capacity for
such
decisions.
These prior decisions can be carried forward by the duly-authorized
proxies.
6. CONCLUSION: YES, SOME
PRISONERS CAN MAKE
A FREE CHOICE FOR VOLUNTARY
EXECUTION.
The expected result of fulfilling all or most of
these
safeguards
is that some prisoners will be permitted to select
voluntary execution
instead of spending the rest of their natural lives behind bars.
There will always be strong resistance to any such
radical change.
But at least people who are open to rational discussion
should be more likely to accept this new right-to-die.
TO BE EXPANDED:
As responses to this essay are presented,
it can be revised and expanded
to embrace all rational problems as they are explained.
Some objections and responses might be so extensive
that they will require completely new essays,
which can be linked from appropriate places in this essay.
Send all responses (pro and con) to:
James Park: e-mail: parkx032@umn.edu.
Created
4-2-2010; Revised 4-9-2010; 4-22-2010; 4-29-2010; 2-4-2011; 10-22-2011;
4-20-2012;
3-23-2013; 9-6-2013; 10-4-2013; 2-23-2014; 10-14-2015; 9-1-2016;
2-1-2019; 11-25-2020
Did this essay change your mind?
Being able to change your thinking about anything
suggests freedom of the will.
If you can make up your own mind,
can a prisoner make a free choice?
Did the suggested safeguards seem sufficient
to prevent coercion and manipulation of prisoners?
Can you think of any additional ways to make certain
that the decision for voluntary execution is truly free?
AUTHOR:
James Leonard Park is an independent
philosopher,
with deep interest in all matters related to the right-to-die.
His commitment to the right-to-die with careful safeguards
came long before his interest in helping prisoners also to claim the
right-to-die.
Perhaps prisoners will lead the way,
encouraging all of us to think of the best
time for us
to die.
Much more about James Park will be found on his
website,
which is the last link below.
See similar ideas:
Voluntary
Execution:
Better than the Death Penalty?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-VX.html
Instead of imposing capital
punishment,
the prisoner might be offered the new option of voluntary execution.
If you are interested in organ-donation from executed prisoners,
go to an Internet portal devoted to:
ORGAN DONATION AFTER EXECUTION:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/P-ORGAN.html
Choosing
Your Date of Death:
How to Achieve a Timely Death
—Not
too Soon, Not too Late
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/CY-DATE.html
26 Recommended Safeguards for all Life-Ending Decisions:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/SG-A-Z.html
A
Facebook Page has been created:
Prisoner
Organ Donation.
This
group welcomes participation by anyone interested in organ
donation from prisoners:
prisoners
who have Internet access, family members, friends,
lawyers,
prison authorities, transplant surgeons, medical ethicists,
journalists, & students.
The
above essay exploring ways to assure that a prisoner is making a free
choice
has
now become Chapter 3 of Organ
Donation After
Execution.
This
Internet
Book was discussed chapter-by-chapter
on
this Facebook Page in 2014.
New comments welcome.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library