@SeaGreenEyez I get that, and I'm not a proponent of punishment as vengeance, but I don't consider their desire that he stand trial as vengeance. In this instance, he's clearly looking to maintain control of the situation first but committing the crime, and then by avoiding a trial which could help his victims get some closure.

If he still wants to end his life after the verdict, he should have that right. I'm not sure how long the process is, but I don't consider it wasted money to maintain his care through the trial.

@Lauren l agree with SGE. Why waste the time and money. Why drag the family through this by having them relive this in a long drawn out process. There is no closure when you lose someone, no matter how they die. In the end there is only acceptance. Get it done and over with.

@Sticks48 @SeaGreenEyez I get what you're saying, I do. And I agree that people who view closure as "making it all makes sense" or as a way of lessening the pain, will not find it.

However, there is a healing brought about by being heard and vindicated. It helped the healing of Larry Nassar's victims to be able to confront him in court. The victim statements of her victims against Ghislaine Maxwell provided a healing for them that Epstein's death before trial cheated them out of. His suicide alone was not enough. The victims in this case did not die. They must live their lives changed by the experience and probably by physical limitations due to their wounds.

Granted, even Epstein did not take the amount of money that caring for this man may. But is the cost alone a good enough reason? Perhaps there is a way in which the victims can be given the power to approve of or decline this decision. I'll be interested in hearing what you find out.

@Lauren We will just have to disagree. You could still have a meeting where the family get to be in a room, confront the accused, have their say, and then let him be off to his end.

@Sticks48 Not a big disagreement then ... I think that would be a viable solution.