No federal, state or city authorities want a suicide while suspects or those convicted are in their custody. The potential consequences are huge, ranging from negative publicity to lawsuits by the dead person's family. No surprise, after the jury convicted former assistant Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky of sex abuse of children, there was a suicide watch.
This focus on protecting themeselves masks bigger issues. They include the right to suicide, the cost-efficiency of suicides which eliminates expense of trying and maintaining alleged criminals, and if this abstract thing called "justice" can be self-administered. Should the U.S. legal system, at all levels, take a fresh look at its mindset about suicide?
In a state court in Arizona, Wall Street trader Michael Marin died after the jury voted him guilty of arson. The jurors concluded that he had set fire to the mansion he could no longer afford in order to collect the insurance. Although the results of an autopsy are not yet available, there's conjecture, reports the DAILY NEWS, that he ingested a poison pill. A videotape records his putting his hand to his mouth.
Of course, this is a compelling story of life imitating a Grade-B spy movie and "best practices" during the Nazi regime. But it also resonates because we wonder if the Marins facing society's system of justice have the option to be their own judge and jury. Also, if they are due to serve long sentences at taxpayer expense, it seems to make pragmatic sense that maybe they should be encouraged to off themselves. The notion of rehabilitation underlying justice in the U.S. hasn't turned out so hot. How many of those incarcerated become good citizens of a society?
Comments