By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger has signed legislation that officially decriminalizes suicide, ending its status as a common law crime. This significant change, taking effect next July, brings relief to families like that of Fairfax County firefighter Nicole Mittendorff, who died by suicide a decade ago. The bill also mandates a review of the implications of this decriminalization on insurance policies. This legislative action is viewed as a victory by those impacted by suicide loss, removing the added burden of a perceived criminal act.
Read the original article here
Virginia has recently enacted a new law that, in essence, decriminalizes suicide, marking a significant shift in how the state approaches mental health crises and an individual’s right to end their life. It’s genuinely curious to consider that, in the first place, suicide was ever treated as a criminal act. The very notion of prosecuting someone who has died or punishing someone for a desperate act of self-harm seems inherently absurd. The idea of throwing a corpse in jail, as some have humorously pointed out, highlights the illogical nature of such laws.
This legislative change represents a more humane and progressive approach to mental health. Instead of resorting to punitive measures against individuals in profound distress, the focus is now shifting towards offering support and prioritizing prevention. This is a crucial development, and one can hope it translates into increased resources and a reduction in the stigma surrounding mental health struggles. Historically, the consequences of suicide were severe, with entire estates being seized by the government and the deceased being treated with utmost disrespect. This grim past reflects a societal view that questioned why someone would choose to end their life rather than continue to contribute to the state, even if that contribution was limited to paying taxes, all while receiving no support and facing worsening conditions.
The historical perspective reveals a deeply ingrained, and frankly, misguided, societal and governmental attitude. The idea that one should be punished for not continuing to live, especially when life itself was not a choice initially made, is a concept that many find hard to reconcile with modern sensibilities. Such outdated laws, like the one just struck down in Virginia, highlight the need for a continuous re-evaluation of existing legislation. Perhaps politicians could spend less time generating new laws and more time reviewing older ones to determine their continued relevance and sensibility in today’s society. The global community would benefit from a broader acknowledgment of both the right to and the inherent dignity of death.
The imposition of laws that compel individuals to remain alive when they wish to exit can, in itself, be seen as a form of coercion. The practice of charging someone with a crime, and often imposing a significant fine, for attempting to end their own life has long been considered an exceptionally illogical and counterproductive measure. It is difficult to fathom how such a penalty could possibly assist someone in their desire to end their suffering; rather, it seems to add another layer of torment to an already unbearable situation.
The term “attempted suicide” itself suggests an act that should never have been criminalized. Historically, suicide was often viewed through the lens of religious doctrine and perceived as an offense against both divine and secular authority. The idea that a state would expend tax dollars to prosecute individuals for attempting suicide, while simultaneously failing to allocate sufficient funds for mental health treatments and preventative resources, is a stark illustration of misplaced priorities. While some may argue that decriminalizing suicide will inevitably lead to an increase in such acts, a counterargument can be made: if suicide is outlawed, only outlaws will commit suicide. The stark reality is that failing in such an attempt could lead to charges of attempted murder and severe prison sentences, fueling industries that may benefit from incarceration.
The question of how to punish someone who has already ended their life has always been a peculiar one, often leading to darkly humorous speculation. The concern that Virginia’s new law might be used to reclassify certain homicides as suicides, thus avoiding investigation, raises a different set of potential issues, though this is not explicitly the intent of decriminalizing suicide itself. One of the more pragmatic, though still concerning, reasons cited for criminalizing suicide in the past was to empower first responders. In the instance of a suicide attempt, the act could be classified as a “crime,” thus granting police and emergency personnel the legal authority to intervene, break into homes if necessary, and provide immediate medical assistance.
This justification, while intended to facilitate intervention, still carries implications of forced engagement with the mental healthcare system. Being involuntarily committed for a period, even for observation and potential help, can feel like a punishment to someone in a deeply vulnerable state, especially when initiated through a legal arrest. While the intent might not have been punitive for the individual attempting suicide, the mechanism for intervention was rooted in criminal law, which inherently carries a punitive framework. It was also suggested that the criminalization was primarily to deter assisted suicide, highlighting a desire to control the circumstances under which death occurs, potentially intertwined with religious or moral objections.
The practical implications of criminalizing suicide have also been speculated to involve life insurance payouts and inheritance. The idea that a crime could invalidate benefits for surviving family members is a grim consideration that adds another layer of difficulty to an already tragic situation. The argument that criminalizing suicide somehow prevents individuals from taking out loans for a brief period of enjoyment followed by self-harm also touches upon socio-economic disparities and how the law might be perceived as protecting financial interests over individual well-being. The notion that life is a “timeshare with no resale value” offers a poignant, if bleak, perspective on the existential struggle that can lead to such desperate choices.
While some may find the argument that individuals did not choose to be alive to be a “dumb argument,” the sentiment reflects a profound feeling of being trapped in existence. The idea that life was “forced upon me” captures the essence of feeling a lack of agency, and the desire to reclaim control through the decision to end it is a powerful, albeit tragic, expression of that feeling. The historical context of suicide being illegal in many societies until relatively recently, with many parts of the US decriminalizing it in the late 20th century, underscores how deeply ingrained these laws were and how much progress has been made in shifting societal perspectives.
The assertion that making suicide illegal was primarily to enable first responders to intervene when a “crime is being committed” is a recurring theme. This framing suggests that the legal status of suicide as a crime provided the necessary justification for police to use reasonable force and apprehend individuals to prevent them from harming themselves. The question of whether individuals were actually arrested before is valid, as the practical application of such laws might have varied. The underlying purpose, it seems, was to create a legal pathway for intervention, even if it meant employing the tools of the criminal justice system. This approach, while perhaps effective in initiating contact with emergency services, could still be experienced as punitive and further traumatizing for someone already in crisis. The new law in Virginia aims to dismantle this punitive framework, paving the way for a more compassionate and supportive response to individuals experiencing suicidal ideation.