Should Perpetrators of Heinous Crimes be Allowed "an Honorable Death"?

The Honorable Death Card

The British rock star, Ian Watkins, filmed himself raping an eleven-month old baby and sexually assaulting other young children. He admitted his guilt in court and has been placed under suicide watch.  The Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was on 24-hour suicide watch before his execution in 2001.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing case has been placed under suicide watch. When criminals commit particularly heinous acts, whose public exposure overwhelms them with shame or fear, why not allow them to choose an "honorable death," by taking their own lives?

 Admittedly, the concept of "honorable death" is not in our Western legal lexicon, except in cases of heroic soldiers dying for their country.  But maybe it should be.  Our criminal justice system prides itself on its secular rather than Biblical roots.  But in truth, fundamentalist Christian theology  plays  far too prominent a role in how we treat those men and women who acknowledge their crimes against humanity, and seek to atone by taking their own lives.

Many suicides, even those committed by prison inmates, are caused by depression, for which a prescription for Prozac or other psychiatric treatment may alleviate the unbearable psychic pain. But sometimes, in cases where ghastly crimes have been committed,  the perpetrator's anguish is a yearning for absolution, which society should honor.  Our refusal to do so is little more than a  secular facade for Biblical threats that suicide will cause that person's soul to burn in hell.   Or maybe it is because we live in a culture that no longer believes in "honor."