Only insofar as this is true of every police or intelligence agency no?
"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.
The thing is that if you started this off you'd end up with no-one wanting to go into politics, or there being a kind of "closed ranks" effect around areas where it is expected for the people to kill themselves.
For instance, do you honestly think that ANY politician, policeman or what have you is going to be willing to watch someone in a very similar position to them cut open their stomach? Its much more likely that they would simply try and ensure that nothing worth Seppuku is ever admitted to by anyone.
And I am absolutely sure that that will create problems.
Granted, Singapore has very draconian penalties for corruption, and they manage pretty well - they're one of the least corrupt countries in the world. However, I don't think they have the death penalty, so I don't think they go that far.
Gristknife
If somebody besides the executive decides to kill themselves, it's not suicide, it's execution. That has already been said.
And even corruption seems like a bit of a stretch for the death penalty in most situations. Treason is more than graft or embezzlement.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Long Live the King
... Since this policy decision seems to be a failure from the planning stages, does anyone else agree that SH should commit Seppuku?
uh...no, because proposing an idea is one thing, but I believe that the objection was to harmful acts, not to merely failing to get ideas accepted.
Long Live the King
If it's such a great idea to be suggested in the first place... Using Insane Troll Logic, wouldn't failing to get the idea accepted be, in itself, a harmful act?
edited 21st Jun '11 12:00:14 PM by Swish
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
I'm not an authority figure implementing public policy. I'm a random dude making a suggestion. Now, if somebody were to implement it and it failed to work, either him or myself might well be expected to do it. 
Gristknife
It's pretty easy to hold yourself to the easy side of double standards.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Also, even if we assume this was the cultural norm, there's the inherent problem of a punitive system based entirely upon honor, yet inherently dishonorable people would be the only ones you'd really want to get rid of, so only honorable people who happened to fail due to being, well, human would kill themselves, leaving the government ruled by evil, dishonourable people.
Gristknife
Huh, yeah. Bit of a Catch, ain't it?
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
"What about the petty satisfaction of at least the asshole who screwed us over is dead? At the very least, it brings closure."
I take it that you are ready and willing to kill yourself should the act of your suicide bring pleasure to another?
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
@Matthew: That's a valid objection. I was also concerned about buck-passing, as I mentioned earlier.
edited 21st Jun '11 1:40:59 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
KVLFON
There is some appeal in this idea.
That said, like with duelling thing, it's an idea fun in theory that turns out to have some bad unintended consequences.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"
I see the Awesomeness.
@ OP, I support.
I also think people should commit Seppuku when they lose a job.
Fight smart, not fair.
... I thought this thread was a joke.
Far out. Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking much? Many, many people I know fall under the heading of 'busybody' in some way or other. Am I expected to kill myself if I enquire about a friend's relationship status and it turns out they'd rather not talk about it?
Be not afraid...
I vote that the first people we order to ritual suicide are the people who proposed bringing back ritual suicide.
So you want them to lead by example?
There are two important points I haven't seen raised: First, beyond the incredibly smart people who'd have to kill themselves over an accident, we'd also potentially lose the insight of other incredibly smart people who could have great ideas but wouldn't be willing to bet their lives on them. Even if you could persuade or force these people to take office, they'd play things safe and we'd lose a great deal of innovation.
Secondly, you'd need to be able to place blame with 100% accuracy. It's been demonstrated* that a great deal of failure (or less relevantly success) is due to random chance. Due to the law of small numbers, there's only a small chance that you'll see an accurate view of a person's performance unless you study that person for a fairly long time. Also, and unfortunately I can't find my source for this one* , a company or nation's performance during a prime minister or CEO's rule is more closely related to that person'e predecessor than it is to the person currently in charge.
Gristknife
And you kinda went in for a personal jibe.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Is that cake frosting?
Tread Hop, but what?
No, if someone messes up then, in order to regain their honour, they need to make reparations to those who have been affected by their mistake and ask for their forgiveness. Death does not do that, and therefore it is useless — if you make a grave mistake and then kill yourself instead of facing the consequences then your death is as honourless as your life, if not more so.
edited 21st Jun '11 10:02:31 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
Even in the case of corruption, it's iffy at absolute best because the definition of corruption varies so widely depending on circumstances. There have been studies that have focused on different types of what might be perceived as corruption to outsiders and how some of that corruption has actually helped countries develop, weirdly enough.
For example: Japan & South Korea.