This indicates that society is not safe as the result of the death penalty, so long as life in prison is a real and fully-enforced option for prisoners who commit terrible crimes. There is also the very real issue of innocent people who are murdered by the state. Of course, some proponents of capital punishment argue that from a utilitarian point-of-view, more guilty people are executed than innocent people. But an equally rational utilitarian point-of-view is that when it is discovered that the state has killed an innocent person, respect for the state and the judicial process as a whole is damaged. When no one respects the judicial process, crime is likely to increase. Further damage to the social perception of the justice system is incurred by the fact that more non-whites are executed than whites, which suggests that racial biases on the part of juries and lack of access to adequate representation results in two justice systems, one for minorities and one for the dominant ethnic group.

This argument is particularly compelling in a diverse society such as Canada's, which, even though it does not have as deep-seated a history of racial discrimination as the United States, has a wide variety of native peoples, immigrants from Asia, French-speakers, and other minority groups. It does not want to create further divisiveness in society, and it hardly needs the added financial expense and strain upon its judicial...

No active medications will be administered to the patient, although medically necessary treatment will not be given so the patient will pass away from her illness. While Kant himself argued that suicide is degrading because human life should be embraced in its full capacity, as a source of pain as well as pleasure, and that the categorical imperative necessitates that life must always be preserved, Neo-Kantians would say that showing respect Olivia's wishes necessitates a withdrawal of added support, including medication for pneumonia. Olivia was clearly aware of what life as an Alzheimer's patient was like, and gave a medical directive to ensure that her wishes were obeyed.
A Kantian might respond that Olivia's current state of personhood, rather than her past state of personhood should be heeded. After all, no one can fully appreciate the consequences of his or her actions 'in the moment,' and Olivia could not have apprehended her future state of personhood. She might have some contentment from her life. As we cannot know, life must be preserved. Also, we cannot know how much of 'personhood' Olivia currently retains. But a Neo-Kantian might respond that it is uncertain if she experiences pain or pleasure, or the ability to embrace life as Kant decreed at all, thus what is certain should be respected, in the form of her living will.

A Neo-Kantian would also argue that to show full respect to Olivia's human dignity, from what we know of it, her wishes should be respected. We cannot know what Olivia, with her full capacities, would think of her current state, but from what she did know, and was capable of knowing of the illness at the time, she made a decision. Thus, the principle of autonomy must be respected, as every patient must have a certain degree of choice over his or her life, provided he or she is in full possession of his or her faculties.