Texas drops special last meal for death row inmates

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

So we have to figure out what plus wrong WILL equal right.

X + wrong = right

So to figure for X, we subtract wrong from each side, which gives us this:

X = right - wrong.

So when we put that back into the initial equation, we end up with this:

(right-wrong) + wrong = right.

The two wrongs essentially cancel each other out, leaving this:

right = right

So two wrongs DO make a right.

[Super Dude]

 

[ehra]

Yeah, it's pretty douchey for him to order all that food and then not eat it, but hey that's his right, and certainly if it's just prison food it's not really that big of a deal one way or the other.

Really. It's fucking food, if the guy doesn't eat it then let other people eat it.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Yeah, it's pretty douchey for him to order all that food and then not eat it, but hey that's his right, and certainly if it's just prison food it's not really that big of a deal one way or the other.

Really. It's fucking food, if the guy doesn't eat it then let other people eat it.

This.  It WAS douchey to order all the food, but like you said, just start passing it out and let others eat it.  Problem solved.  Whoever got some of it others would've been grateful to have something better than that day's normal meal.

[PraXis]

If they witnessed him doing it, he wouldn't be innocent...

[Super Dude]

People can lie.

[El Barto]

If they witnessed him doing it, he wouldn't be innocent...

Grr, I don't know why I'm bothering.

Witnesses are questionable for a variety of reasons.  For one thing,  we just kind of suck at identifying strangers.  If you're white, and the suspect is black, even more so.  The way ID's work can be pretty flaky as well.  People tend to see what they think they're supposed to.  In the case of Troy Davis,  cops had done a pretty good job of planting Davis in their mind; common practice.  I'm going to assume that you're not in favor of doing away with all criminal trials (though you might well be),  but by the time one comes around, memories are hazy, and the witness is working on a variety of secondary info to fill in the blanks of the specific details that they've long forgotten. 

All you really need to do is to look at the number of women who've testified to juries that they are 100%, absolutely positive that Suspect X raped them, only to have Suspect X cleared by DNA evidence 17 years later.  Don't you think that you'd stand a better chance of recognizing your rapist than some guy who was fleeing a murder seen?

[Super Dude]

If they witnessed him doing it, he wouldn't be innocent...

Grr, I don't know why I'm bothering.

Witnesses are questionable for a variety of reasons.  For one thing,  we just kind of suck at identifying strangers.  If you're white, and the suspect is black, even more so.  The way ID's work can be pretty flaky as well.  People tend to see what they think they're supposed to.  In the case of Troy Davis,  cops had done a pretty good job of planting Davis in their mind; common practice.  I'm going to assume that you're not in favor of doing away with all criminal trials (though you might well be),  but by the time one comes around, memories are hazy, and the witness is working on a variety of secondary info to fill in the blanks of the specific details that they've long forgotten. 

All you really need to do is to look at the number of women who've testified to juries that they are 100%, absolutely positive that Suspect X raped them, only to have Suspect X cleared by DNA evidence 17 years later.  Don't you think that you'd stand a better chance of recognizing your rapist than some guy who was fleeing a murder seen?

Yeah, actually I think is a pretty solid case for why the death penalty should be completely abolished.

[El Barto]

Please explain that more; it's been bugging me that the legal process could end up costing more money than the total needed to sustain an inmate's life for life.

Housing inmates in general population is dirt cheap.  About $30k per head, per year.  The fact that so many prisons are now operated for profit should tell you something.  Guards don't make much.  Food is the cheapest you can buy.  Same for medical care. 

A death sentence requires more time and money at every phase.  Trials cost more (a lot more).  Appeals cost even more, and there are a variety of appeals that happen, and they're at both state and federal levels.  Then you've got incarcerating somebody on death row, which is also quite a bit more expensive*.

The link Implode posted provides a great deal of info, but one of the most telling numbers in it is the Texas entry.  No state has gone to greater lengths to streamline the process.  Rick Perry is basing his campaign on how effectively we're able to kill people.  Yet even here it costs three times as much to execute someone as it does to lock them up for 40 years.  If we can't do it right, why would you think anybody else could do it better?


*There's a wonderful irony about that, in that a great deal of the added cost is to insure that the prisoner doesn't kill himself before the state gets a chance to do it first. 

[j]

And now with the last meal out the window, all they're with is just desserts.

Shame that this great post went tragically unappreciated.

And lol at Praxis in this thread.  He cannot be a real person.

-J

[Super Dude]

Jeez, I can't believe I left out the word 'left.'

[William Wallace]

Oh how I love conservative compassion.

I don't see "compassion" in the Constitution. If you are guilty of a violent crime, you should be taken out back and shot immediately. It saves the tax payers plenty of money.

In your opinion, the government's the most corrupt, ineffective institution in existence. I happen to agree. Yet, when it comes to executing peeps, no doubts surface about their capability to justly carry out the sentence. Awesome.

If the person committed the crime, admitted it, and/or multiple witnesses, then yes, take them out. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If they are found to be guilty without doubt, then take 'em out back.

I'm sure you do, but your jumpy trigger figure all but assures that the cards are stacked against somebody on trial for murder.

And again, the faith you place in the state to justly poison people is stunning, especially since they have indeed ended many innocent people over the decades.

[orcus116]

Nobody should treat humans like dirt. The accused is no less a human because of the things he did. Should he be punished? Yes. I personally don't believe in the death penalty, but that is a topic for another day. I believe that just because someone did something shitty, they do not deserve shittiness in return. To quote the old saying, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

How can you say they deserve punishment then turn around and defend them from the deserved punishment (which is how I interpreted "doing something shitty should not get the same in return")? Of course nobody should treat humans like dirt but when they do, like Brewer, it does in a way make him less human. Maybe you're trying to prove a slightly different point but damn the way you worded makes it seem like criminals who commit truly heinous crimes shouldn't be held fully accountable for their actions or at least suffer adequate punishment for what they did.

[73109]

When I say deserve punishment, I meant imprisonment. That is it. No death, no brutality, none of that.

[orcus116]

No brutality for someone who dragged another human behind their truck until they died? I get the no death thing but I fully support some mentally or physically crippling debilitation for someone who thinks its ok to do something that fucked up. In dreamland it's fine to think that jail will scare everyone straight but some will just shrug off it off without actually considering it punishment.

[Adami]

No brutality for someone who dragged another human behind their truck until they died?

Yes. No brutality for someone who is captured.

[orcus116]

Too light.

[Adami]

Too light.

I also don't have a desire to inflict harm on someone. To me, violence is at most a necessary evil, but never something to want to do.

[Dark Castle]

Too light.

I also don't have a desire to inflict harm on someone. To me, violence is at most a necessary evil, but never something to want to do.

[orcus116]

Too light.

I also don't have a desire to inflict harm on someone. To me, violence is at most a necessary evil, but never something to want to do.

I guess I side a little too much with the victims family. Jail's adequate for most in my mind but when someone willingly commits an act of finality that breaks basic human rights such as murder that person has forfeited their own basic human rights and should be severely punished alongside of jail time.

[El Barto]

That person has forfeited their own basic human rights.  That's a nice way of putting it.  Can't say that I necessarily disagree with you.  However,  just because that's the case doesn't mean that we should treat them like animals.  Personally,  I'm a big fan of striving to be better than scumbags and animals.  We're not discussing whether it's right to whack him or not in this thread.  We're discussing whether it's reasonable to show a small amount of compassion in the process.  I say that if we're going to stoop to the level of the animal in our punishment,  which like it or not is generally the case with these things,  then trying to do it with at least a modicum of humanity is an important gesture.   

[Super Dude]

I agree with Barto here.  It's like how people got with Osama bin Laden after his death was announced, and how there were people saying they wished Osama had at least been brought stateside so he could be tarred and feathered before they dealt him "homegrown" justice.  He was a terrible guy who wrought a great deal of damage to Americans and to the country, but that's the point where we become no better than the criminal we're trying to arraign.

[Perpetual Change]

I've been thinking about this for awhile now.

Maybe it'd be better if the plaintiff sat down with the person on death row and they ate his last meal together. Then, the next day or later or whenever, the plaintiff himself would have to pull the lever or handle the injection.

This stuff should be taken seriously.

[Chino]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, with lights on all day, no windows, and sound proof walls. Leave pictures of the person he killed all over the walls. Pictures of the dead person with their family, with their kids, and dead at the crime scene. Hell, maybe even loop home movies all day. "accidentally" leave a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

[rumborak]

Well, other than the fact that you've driven a human being into committing suicide....

rumborak

[Super Dude]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, with lights on all day, no windows, and sound proof walls. Leave pictures of the person he killed all over the walls. Pictures of the dead person with their family, with their kids, and dead at the crime scene. Hell, maybe even loop home movies all day. "accidentally" leave a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

Isn't there some place in the world where that is a form of imprisonment, and it's been called a violation of human rights?

[Perpetual Change]

Well, other than the fact that you've driven a human being into committing suicide....

rumborak

Chino's psychological torture route is pretty harsh, but I'm not against the suicide part specifically. I don't see the problem with giving people on death row the option of offing themselves.

[El Barto]

Well, other than the fact that you've driven a human being into committing suicide....

rumborak

Chino's psychological torture route is pretty harsh, but I'm not against the suicide part specifically. I don't see the problem with giving people on death row the option of offing themselves.

Yeah, that one's always confounded me.  The state will spend a ton of money just to insure that it get's to pull the trigger, rather than be cheated out of the opportunity by a selfish convict.

[73109]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, with lights on all day, no windows, and sound proof walls. Leave pictures of the person he killed all over the walls. Pictures of the dead person with their family, with their kids, and dead at the crime scene. Hell, maybe even loop home movies all day. "accidentally" leave a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

I can't even begin to describe how disgusting this is. If you truly feel this way, you are worse than the criminal you are putting in this cell.

[Perpetual Change]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, lights out, no windows, and sound proof walls. Loop Avatar once per day. "Accidentally" leave a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

[ehra]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, with lights on all day, no windows, and sound proof walls. Leave pictures of the person he killed all over the walls. Pictures of the dead person with their family, with their kids, and dead at the crime scene. Hell, maybe even loop home movies all day. "accidentally" leave a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

I can't even begin to describe how disgusting this is. If you truly feel this way, you are worse than the criminal you are putting in this cell.

But Jimmy started it!

[Implode]

but when someone willingly commits an act of finality that breaks basic human rights such as murder that person has forfeited their own basic human rights and should be severely punished alongside of jail time.

I guess my problem with this is that it implies to only thing keeping us from being savages is the nebulous "human rights." It's as though it's a law we're all reluctantly following, and as soon as it's okay to hurt someone, we'd love to do so. We shouldn't respect human rights because they have them, we should respect them because we want to.

[orcus116]

but that's the point where we become no better than the criminal we're trying to arraign.

I've always hated this line because it equates cold, willful murder with retribution. Yes the act is essentially the same but the purpose behind the two are different and the latter is absolutely justified. If someone offs an innocent person when/if they themselves get offed they sure as hell aren't innocent.

[Dark Castle]

The solution to this is easy. Leave the criminal in solitary confinement, lights out, no windows, and sound proof walls. Loop Avatar once per day. "Accidentally" leave a along with a loaded handgun in the cell. Everybody wins, and no one gets their hands dirty.

[Super Dude]

but that's the point where we become no better than the criminal we're trying to arraign.

I've always hated this line because it equates cold, willful murder with retribution. Yes the act is essentially the same but the purpose behind the two are different and the latter is absolutely justified. If someone offs an innocent person when/if they themselves get offed they sure as hell aren't innocent.

I agree, but I don't equate the murder with retribution. Rather, I see it the other way 'round; the revenge is not just if means to that end are just as vicious and cold-blooded as the act it's avenging.