# Texas Bans Execution Last Meals



## MA-Caver (Sep 23, 2011)

Sure leave it to one guy to screw it up for everyone else. 
Usually last meal requests were granted for the condemned but some have literally abused the privileged, like the white supremacist who dragged a man behind his truck. This guy ordered a meal that he couldn't possibly have finished (didn't say if he did or not) but it was IMO above and beyond typical prison fare.   


> [h=1]Texas execution leads to ban on choice of last meal[/h] 				 					Authorities will only  serve standard prison fare after racist killer Lawrence Russell  Brewer's elaborate and uneaten final request
> 
> 
> Last week inmate Steven Woods's request included 2lb (1kg) of bacon, a  large four-meat pizza, four fried chicken breasts, two drinks each of  Mountain Dew, Pepsi, root beer and sweet tea, two pints (1 litre) of ice  cream, five chicken fried steaks, two hamburgers with bacon, fries and a  dozen garlic bread sticks with marinara on the side. Two hours later he  was executed.
> ...



Now they've banned this and the condemned get whatever else the other inmates are getting. Tough luck boys but like I said... it usually takes one guy to screw it up for everyone else.
Question is should this have been done anyway? Tradition stood mainly because of superstitions of the dead convict coming back to haunt them, so to appease their spirits they're given a good meal before they die. Now nobody is superstitious anymore so that concern isn't a concern today. 
Some say it's hypocritical because their murdered victims didn't get a nice feast before they were killed. In that view I would agree. But then again their victims didn't have much of a choice of dying... neither do those sitting on death-row. It's bad having to sit for days, weeks, months and even years knowing that they're coming to kill you. Personally I think they should only have to wait a few weeks if they're proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 
Should they have last meals or will this trend spread to other prisons/states that still have the death penalty? 


Thoughts, opinions?


----------



## MJS (Sep 23, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Sure leave it to one guy to screw it up for everyone else.
> Usually last meal requests were granted for the condemned but some have literally abused the privileged, like the white supremacist who dragged a man behind his truck. This guy ordered a meal that he couldn't possibly have finished (didn't say if he did or not) but it was IMO above and beyond typical prison fare.
> 
> 
> ...



The guy ordered all this, knowing that he a) couldn't possibly eat it all or b) wasn't going to eat anything.  The staff gave all of this to him.  Now, either they really thought he'd eat it all or they're just very stupid.  In any case, sure, I'm all for giving them a last meal.  But, lets be serious here....it has to be something within reason.  I mean, the amount of food this clown ordered, would feed 6 people.  Order 1 or 2 things, and thats it.  No need for a 6 course meal.  

As for how long they have to sit on death row....yeah, I agree...if people can't get their **** together and figure out if the guy is guilty or innocent, then the system and everyone thats a part of it, really is ****ed.  But thats another thread.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 23, 2011)

My 2yo asked for a Thomas the Tank Engine rollercoaster for the backyard. Common sense really could have come in handy here. Someone orders something ridiculous, you say no.


----------



## billc (Sep 23, 2011)

No, they don't deserve a last meal.  This is always the problem with the death penalty.  It is easy for people to feel some empathy for the guy on death row.  He is a human being in a harsh environment, with no relief, and waiting to be killed.  That is what people see and think about most of the time and it doesn't take much to tap into that natural empathy normal human beings have for the suffering of others.  It takes that extra bit of brain power to think past that, and to feel empathy for the victim who no longer exists,  who suffered, in some cases, 22 years ago, and has lost everything to the man sitting in that cell.  Now I'm not saying that people don't feel for the victim.  I'm trying to point out that the emotions for the victim are in many cases faint traces compared to what is natural to feel for someone you can actually see, who you can actually hear proclaim there innocence or their repentance, whose relatives you also hear asking for lenience for their brother, father, or son who is incarcerated and facing death.  It is all too easy to think about how we would feel if we were the one sitting in the cell waiting for death.  So no.  The killers and the rapists should not be given a last meal.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 24, 2011)

If put into a situation like that myself, eating would be the lest on my mind. I say if they could eat at that point, they must be guilty as hell. Just a thought.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2011)

seasoned said:


> If put into a situation like that myself, eating would be the lest on my mind. I say if they could eat at that point, they must be guilty as hell. Just a thought.



Or innocent, and sure of their fate in the afterlife-the last meal might be the last earthly pleasure.......just a thought.


The last meal is a tradition that is supposed to make the executioners, guards and warden feel better about what they're doing; it's not really for the prisoner at all. Killing someone is against most men's nature, really, and killing someone under such circumstances is especially hard.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 24, 2011)

When the coin flips, things sometimes do look different from that vantage point indeed. Looking at it from my perspective of course, it is a trip either way, that I would take a little on the light side.



elder999 said:


> Or innocent, and sure of their fate in the afterlife-the last meal might be the last earthly pleasure.......just a thought.





> The last meal is a tradition that is supposed to make the executioners, guards and warden feel better about what they're doing; it's not really for the prisoner at all. Killing someone is against most men's nature, really, and killing someone under such circumstances is especially hard.



On this note, this is a job that I would not want. I could see many sleepless nights.


----------



## Carol (Sep 24, 2011)

I was under the impression that the last meal was part of the punishment...the institution is giving a final reminder to the prisoner that they will never see any earthly enjoyment again.  They break the death row routine to show a hint at ho good something is, just before they take it away.

Personally I don't have an issue with the meal, I have an issue with how the situation is handled.  A reactionary ban of something is not a particularly good management practice.   However, since there is more than management at play here (ie: politics), perhaps management principles don't apply.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 24, 2011)

I'm object to the death penalty, so taking away the last meal is like taking the cherry off a fecal matter sundae, IMO.


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 24, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm object to the death penalty, so taking away the last meal is like taking the cherry off a fecal matter sundae, IMO.


Now there's a colorful mental image!!!I, personally, feel I am too young to have an accurate perspective on this particular issue. There is a passionate side of me that says "fry the dirty b******s and starve em first!" And a COMpassionate side of me that says that killing one doesn't rectify the death of another. I'm 25. I have hardly seen enough of life to have the wisdom to determine the value in taking another's away or the manner in which such punishment is delivered. I also can't determine which side of my perspective is the youthful and naive and which is older and more enlightened. I remain opinionless until I can tell which is which...But a fecal matter sundae... cherry or no, that's hilarious, and might make for a great crime deterrent if the was a mandatory last meal.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2011)

naomisarah said:


> *I, personally, feel I am too young to have an accurate perspective on this particular issue. There is a passionate side of me that says "fry the dirty b******s and starve em first!" And a COMpassionate side of me that says that killing one doesn't rectify the death of another. I'm 25. I have hardly seen enough of life to have the wisdom to determine the value in taking another's away or the manner in which such punishment is delivered. I also can't determine which side of my perspective is the youthful and naive and which is older and more enlightened. I remain opinionless until I can tell which is which*....



That strikes me as pretty damn wise for a 25 year old.....or a 51 year old. :asian:


----------



## Buka (Sep 25, 2011)

All people on death row should have a last meal. And a manicure, perhaps a nice massage, maybe a Broadway show. 

A lot of people on death row are monsters. A lot of law abiding citizens in the United States know nothing of monsters. (thankfully)


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2011)

naomisarah said:


> Now there's a colorful mental image!!!I, personally, feel I am too young to have an accurate perspective on this particular issue. There is a passionate side of me that says "fry the dirty b******s and starve em first!" And a COMpassionate side of me that says that killing one doesn't rectify the death of another. I'm 25. I have hardly seen enough of life to have the wisdom to determine the value in taking another's away or the manner in which such punishment is delivered. I also can't determine which side of my perspective is the youthful and naive and which is older and more enlightened. I remain opinionless until I can tell which is which...But a fecal matter sundae... cherry or no, that's hilarious, and might make for a great crime deterrent if the was a mandatory last meal.



In the same vein of humility, don't be afraid to take an opinion.  You have important decisions to make and the world needs your mind.  When the opinion is no longer supportable, change it.  Don't worry about this silly flip-flopper business.  No body gets to be right all of the time and wise people deal with this with grace.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2011)

Buka said:


> All people on death row should have a last meal. And a manicure, perhaps a nice massage, maybe a Broadway show.
> 
> A lot of people on death row are monsters. A lot of law abiding citizens in the United States know nothing of monsters. (thankfully)



Proving people are monsters is the issue.  It's just an opinion.

Also, when you give the State the power to take life and combine it with the above, the stage is set for terror.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 25, 2011)

fry them, fry them twice and scatter the ashes


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2011)

Thou shall not...ah **** it.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 25, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> In the same vein of humility, don't be afraid to take an opinion.  You have important decisions to make and the world needs your mind.  When the opinion is no longer supportable, change it.  Don't worry about this silly flip-flopper business.  No body gets to be right all of the time and wise people deal with this with grace.


It's not so much a matter of wanting to be right as a matter of recognizing that my opinion is currently fluid, and that ambivalence is different from having no opinion. I feel quite strongly both ways, thus can't dismiss one or the other opinion.


----------



## billc (Sep 25, 2011)

I believe you meant "Though shalt do no murder."  These guys apparently did, and they should receive the death penalty as punishment for their crimes, with no last meal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I believe you meant "Though shalt do no murder."  These guys apparently did, and they should receive the death penalty as punishment for their crimes, with no last meal.



Nope, I meant "thou shalt not...ah **** it."

I'm sure people could regale me with apologies about how the bible really meant murder instead of kill.  Well maybe it did and I really don't care.  There's plenty of murder in the Bible and god liked that **** a lot.  

So, "thou shalt not...ah **** it" still applies.

So, what principle are you using to support the death penalty?  How do you support this philosophically?  Do you consistently apply this principle everywhere?


----------



## billc (Sep 25, 2011)

One, if you take an innocent life you lose yours.  Two, someone who willfully murders an innocent is more likely to do that while in prison or if they escape and want to avoid capture.  They may murder a guard, a member of the prison bureacracy, or another prisoner, or people thy come across as they try to make good their escape, perhaps even you makalakumu or one of your family members.  I try to apply it as consistently as possible in this wild world we live in.


----------



## billc (Sep 25, 2011)

Makalakumu, are you against the death penalty for everyone, including john wayne gacy and Adolf eichman, or just for the ones where there isn't complete evidence of guilt?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Makalakumu, are you against the death penalty for everyone, including john wayne gacy and Adolf eichman, or just for the ones where there isn't complete evidence of guilt?



I'm against it for everyone.  I'll try to get into it more later...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 26, 2011)

Death penalty, writ large discussion is thataway.  --------->

As for the last meal thing, I agree with whoever said it above that the decision is being made in reaction to a stunt, which is probably the worst way to make any decision (other than drunk and/or horny, of course).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2011)

Why give them a last meal of any kind?  It's not like they're going to get a chance to digest it.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Why give them a last meal of any kind? It's not like they're going to get a chance to digest it.



Yeah, and everyone really enjoys digesting a meal most of all-never mind the tasting and eating.....

I mean, I get you, it's a waste of food, but it's like I said upthread-this has traditionally been done so that the people responsible for the execution can hang onto their humanity. It's not for the prisoner at all............


.........which explains why this is happening in Texas, of course.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 26, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, and everyone really enjoys digesting a meal most of all-never mind the tasting and eating.....
> 
> I mean, I get you, it's a waste of food, but it's like I said upthread-this has traditionally been done so that the people responsible for the execution can hang onto their humanity. It's not for the prisoner at all............
> 
> ...



Then why not get him a hooker?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then why not get him a hooker?



That's a *hell *of an idea!  LOL!


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then why not get him a hooker?



For the same reason that he doesn't get a shot of heroin or a joint: because it's illegal.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 26, 2011)

I wonder what the last meal was for those murdered by the scum on death row?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 26, 2011)

good question


----------



## Buka (Sep 26, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Proving people are monsters is the issue.  It's just an opinion.
> 
> Also, when you give the State the power to take life and combine it with the above, the stage is set for terror.



I do see your point. However, "terror" is real. It's what these monsters do. I'm not talking about ordinary crime here, I'm talking pure horror. The issue of monsters is real. I could copy many of the case files I have, but I wouldn't blame anyone from banning me from this forum for posting pure, obscene horror if I did so.  What we do is take these monsters and spend millions of dollars on them, not on their victims or victims families, not on the poor and needy, but on them. We threaten our own species but our unwillingness to protect it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2011)

Buka said:


> I do see your point. However, "terror" is real. It's what these monsters do. I'm not talking about ordinary crime here, I'm talking pure horror. The issue of monsters is real. I could copy many of the case files I have, but I wouldn't blame anyone from banning me from this forum for posting pure, obscene horror if I did so.  What we do is take these monsters and spend millions of dollars on them, not on their victims or victims families, not on the poor and needy, but on them. We threaten our own species but our unwillingness to protect it.



True.  We spend way too much money, but not for the reasons that most people think.  At every step in the creation of a "monster" there was an abrogation of personal responsibility.  Killing the "monster" is an abrogation of personal responsibility.  

In my moral universe, The Non-Aggression Principle is violated by the Death Penalty.  In a free society we probably wouldn't kill people who have taken life unless it was directly in self defense.


----------



## granfire (Sep 26, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> True.  We spend way too much money, but not for the reasons that most people think.  At every step in the creation of a "monster" there was an abrogation of personal responsibility.  Killing the "monster" is an abrogation of personal responsibility.
> 
> In my moral universe, The Non-Aggression Principle is violated by the Death Penalty.  In a free society we probably wouldn't kill people who have taken life unless it was directly in self defense.



Interesting thought.
However, considering the few things I have heard from my mom in over three years of dinner table conversation (she was head of the nursing staff at a major German mental facility and a front runner in her field) some people are just not wired right.
They have the nurturing and the 'nature' to be good people and still turn out evil. And I think your thought model does not account for sociopaths. Channeled in 'positive' directions, these people become CEOs and political leaders 9since they can tell people what they want to hear all while sounding sincere. Or they make up the population of serial killers.

There are some really disturbed people out there....a dog with similar disposition would be put down ASAP.

There is a time for everything, preserving life and taking life.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2011)

Who am I to judge when a human needs to be put down like a dog? I know broken brains exist and I know that various agents in society break brains. At some point these brains cannot be fixed. What's wrong with a mental institution, or voluntary suicide? Does a human with a broken brain have a right to life?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 26, 2011)

i guess that depends on the manner in which it is broken... does it take away more lives to have it exist than it takes away to destroy it? Who is qualified to determine the value of one versus many? Is each life equal to each other life?How I wish I could glimpse, in four hundred years, what people then will say of these things happening now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2011)

naomisarah said:


> i guess that depends on the manner in which it is broken... does it take away more lives to have it exist than it takes away to destroy it? Who is qualified to determine the value of one versus many? Is each life equal to each other life?How I wish I could glimpse, in four hundred years, what people then will say of these things happening now.



I wish I could glimpse this as well.  

Btw - do you know what kind of ethics you are suggesting?


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 27, 2011)

with which, the question of how a human brain is broken or looking into the future? That was not, once again, a terribly decidedly opinionated post.


----------



## granfire (Sep 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Who am I to judge when a human needs to be put down like a dog? I know broken brains exist and I know that various agents in society break brains. At some point these brains cannot be fixed. What's wrong with a mental institution, or voluntary suicide? Does a human with a broken brain have a right to life?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



(I meant to say 3 decades, not years)

And yes, the hospital my mom worked at had a forensic ward. Mental institutions only recently became a humane place to warehouse those who can't function in public.
Physical abuse was the norm, for parts even after medications made it easier to control issues that often could turn dangerous. Mental health is not for the faint of heart. 

And while just being retarded in mental development is no reason to kill a person, we are not talking about them.
We are talking about a few individuals who did a great deal of damage to society and if turned lose again will repeat their actions.

Voluntary suicide? I am not sure where that fits in here. I mean, voluntary like Rommel?


But i thought this started out as a debate about the last meal.

Personally I see it as an act of mercy. A few years back this guy asked for spagettios. They fixed him some noodle dinner. I mean, come on, a dollar can of noodles wasn't in the budget?! 
I do agree however, that the 200 course meal as in the heart of the thread is ridiculous.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 27, 2011)

I don't have a problem with offering a condemned man his favorite meal before he is killed.  It is an act of compassion.  Yes, I realize that he is on death row for an act that is definitely not compassionate, but we are not the same as he is, are we? We can afford to let him have a certain food as his last meal.  Now if the condemned is taking advantage of it then common sense would say to not let this happen either.


----------



## NSRTKD (Sep 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> Said far more gracefully than I could have... thanks, Gran...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> We are talking about a few individuals who did a great deal of damage to society and if turned lose again will repeat their actions.



How do you know these lives are worth taking?  How do you know these lives are of no value?  How do you know that the idea of damage won't be defined and redefined again by faceless bureaucracies until it reaches a point where it lets loose in society and a "few individuals" just need to get murdered for the "good of everyone"?


----------



## granfire (Sep 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How do you know these lives are worth taking?  How do you know these lives are of no value?  How do you know that the idea of damage won't be defined and redefined again by faceless bureaucracies until it reaches a point where it lets loose in society and a "few individuals" just need to get murdered for the "good of everyone"?



Good question.

How can you however put a value on such a life? I mean, a positive one.

Yes, I think that not all life is worth preserving. On many levels.
There are individuals who eat away on the fabric of society and humanity like a cancer. 
Cancer is nothing like body cells, right. But if left unchecked they eat away the healthy tissue and kill the organism.

Read some of the stuff Manny has reported from his home town. 

Personally i think the option of warehousing serial offenders in prisons and mental institutions is far less humane than a final option.
Like I said, you don't cage up dogs infinitely when they can't function outside the cage.

There was just the other night a thing on TV about a guy with a fully equipped rape room...with all the gadgets you can ever imagine in a sick mind to use a woman. The very thought of such a sick mind is frightening.


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2011)

MJS said:


> The guy ordered all this, knowing that he a) couldn't possibly eat it all or b) wasn't going to eat anything.  The staff gave all of this to him.  Now, either they really thought he'd eat it all or they're just very stupid.  In any case, sure, I'm all for giving them a last meal.  But, lets be serious here....it has to be something within reason.  I mean, the amount of food this clown ordered, would feed 6 people.  Order 1 or 2 things, and thats it.  No need for a 6 course meal.
> 
> As for how long they have to sit on death row....yeah, I agree...if people can't get their **** together and figure out if the guy is guilty or innocent, then the system and everyone thats a part of it, really is ****ed.  But thats another thread.


The amount of money it cost to give this guy everything he asked for couldn't have been more than a couple hundred bucks...  literally a drop in the ocean of how much money we, as taxpayers, paid to incarcerate him and execute him.  I think this is a debate is like discussing the wallpaper in a condemned building.  The wallpaper might suck, but for Pete's sake, does it matter?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> The very thought of such a sick mind is frightening.



If that brain is in a cage, what is the threat?  Could such a brain be productive within the confines of a cage?


----------



## Monroe (Sep 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If that brain is in a cage, what is the threat?  Could such a brain be productive within the confines of a cage?



I'd rather see them dead, maybe I lack moral fiber. I don't want to see them remain in this world. But until they make the death penalty process cheaper than life in prison, I prefer spending the difference on other things.


----------



## billc (Sep 27, 2011)

The threat is  to guards, other prisoners and anyone who might run across this guy if he manages to escape or the guards he may injure during his twenty some odd years in jail.    In the cases of no doubt, john wayne gacey or ted bundy, executing them is justice.  If you take away the life of an innocent person, you forfeit your own.  People may say it is more cruel to let them live in prison for the rest of their life, but people can adapt to just about any situation.  Take your time to make sure you have the right guy and then immediately execute them, no last meal.

There is a show on MSNBC about life in the prisons of the U.S.  More people should watch it so you can see exactly the types of monsters are locked away "for life."  I remember one episode where the inmate would get glass from the workshop, grind it into a dust and throw it into the faces of the guards, in order to blind them.  He said that as the guard would rub his face, it would scrape the skin bloody.  These are the types of things that the death penalty would eventually stop.

I have to say the the moral stance is to support the death penalty.


----------



## Buka (Sep 27, 2011)

What is the bottom line fear of most human beings? Death. Oh, sure, we have other fears, but death is the universal, it is the given, it is hard wired into our physiology as self preservation. Ahhh, but there is an exception to lingering death by disease, starvation, to the horror of being helpless, tortured and slaughtered by a cold hearted killer. There is the death of a king.
Sodium thiopental, a peaceful ease to unconscious. Then, painless, fearless, a lethal injection. Death like a king. But THAT is reserved for the very few. 

May none of you, your family, your friends, ever be a victim. May none of you ever be the first arriving officer on scene. May you all stay safe. May our species finally take action against those that do not let others live in peace.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The threat is  to guards, other prisoners and anyone who might run across this guy if he manages to escape or the guards he may injure during his twenty some odd years in jail.    In the cases of no doubt, john wayne gacey or ted bundy, executing them is justice.  If you take away the life of an innocent person, you forfeit your own.  People may say it is more cruel to let them live in prison for the rest of their life, but people can adapt to just about any situation.  Take your time to make sure you have the right guy and then immediately execute them, no last meal.
> 
> There is a show on MSNBC about life in the prisons of the U.S.  More people should watch it so you can see exactly the types of monsters are locked away "for life."  I remember one episode where the inmate would get glass from the workshop, grind it into a dust and throw it into the faces of the guards, in order to blind them.  He said that as the guard would rub his face, it would scrape the skin bloody.  These are the types of things that the death penalty would eventually stop.
> 
> I have to say the the moral stance is to support the death penalty.



If an inmate attacks a guard, wouldn't it be appropriate to use deadly force?  I think so.  Why do we have to take it farther then that?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's not applied consistently.  A life for a life has a lot of caveats.  Also, how is justice served by taking life?  What separates "death penalty justice" from revenge?  Is revenge an appropriate form of justice?


----------



## granfire (Sep 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If that brain is in a cage, what is the threat?  Could such a brain be productive within the confines of a cage?



There is always the possibility of that caged brain to be set free.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 27, 2011)

Buka said:


> What is the bottom line fear of most human beings? Death. Oh, sure, we have other fears, but death is the universal, it is the given, it is hard wired into our physiology as self preservation. Ahhh, but there is an exception to lingering death by disease, starvation, to the horror of being helpless, tortured and slaughtered by a cold hearted killer. There is the death of a king.
> Sodium thiopental, a peaceful ease to unconscious. Then, painless, fearless, a lethal injection. Death like a king. But THAT is reserved for the very few.
> 
> May none of you, your family, your friends, ever be a victim. May none of you ever be the first arriving officer on scene. May you all stay safe. May our species finally take action against those that do not let others live in peace.



That's quite the assumption that no one on here has been or victim or is close to a victim.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> There is always the possibility of that caged brain to be set free.


 
Are we killing a brain for something it might be responsible for in the future?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Are we killing a brain for something it might be responsible for in the future?
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


The best indicator for future behavior is past behavior.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> The best indicator for future behavior is past behavior.



Until it isn't.

We're stilling killing someone for something they might do if we assume the moral principle you are using.


----------



## granfire (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Until it isn't.
> 
> We're stilling killing someone for something they might do if we assume the moral principle you are using.



No, we are talking about people who have displayed disregard for other people's lives and societies rules.

Set them adrift on an icefloat in the arctic, for all I care. But remove them permanently from society.


No, actually we were talking about denying a condemned person a choice of last meal/comfort food.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> No, we are talking about people who have displayed disregard for other people's lives and societies rules.
> 
> Set them adrift on an icefloat in the arctic, for all I care. But remove them permanently from society.
> 
> ...



Like I said before it's kind of like taking away the cherry on fecal matter sundae.  The whole thing stinks and you can't ignore it...but we can talk about the cherry all day and pretend like there isn't a turd in the room I guess.


----------



## granfire (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Like I said before it's kind of like taking away the cherry on fecal matter sundae.  The whole thing stinks and you can't ignore it...but we can talk about the cherry all day and pretend like there isn't a turd in the room I guess.




Interesting way to put it.

I do believe in the sanctity of life.

But that does not mean I believe that all life has to be preserved at all cost.

Capital punishment is as old as human interaction. 

There have always been offenses that forfitted the offender's life: When ever the actions are deemed too disruptive for the continuum of society.
Murder has always been on the top of the list (and pretty early on there were exemptions)
Rape was another, especially the attack on the innocent, AKA virgins.

The notion that a human life has to be preserved at all cost, no matter what is really new. 
And frankly, not all that beneficial for the greater good of humanity.


In this context maybe Predators ought to be suggested as reading material. Of perpetrators who leave a wake of destruction and don't seem to stop their evil deeds.
http://www.amazon.com/Predators-Ped...r_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317216392&sr=1-22


----------



## MJS (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How do you know these lives are worth taking? How do you know these lives are of no value? How do you know that the idea of damage won't be defined and redefined again by faceless bureaucracies until it reaches a point where it lets loose in society and a "few individuals" just need to get murdered for the "good of everyone"?



Because some people just dont want to be helped.  If this guy committed some horrible crime, such as the trial thats taking place this moment, with the 2nd suspect in a home invasion here in CT, people like that, have, IMO, no remorse for himan life.  OTOH, its interesting...suspect #1, who's already on death row, is getting tossed under the bus by suspect #2.  #2, makes it seem as though he didn't want the situation to get as far as it did, which was, lets see....the husband getting whacked numeorus times on the head with a bat. He was the only survivor BTW.  The wife and 2 daughters...well, they all died, oh yeah, and the house was lit on fire too.  

Sorry, people like that can't IMO, be rehabilitated.  Some people need to cap their bleeding hearts and come to the understanding that you can't rehab **** like that!


----------



## MJS (Sep 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The amount of money it cost to give this guy everything he asked for couldn't have been more than a couple hundred bucks... literally a drop in the ocean of how much money we, as taxpayers, paid to incarcerate him and execute him. I think this is a debate is like discussing the wallpaper in a condemned building. The wallpaper might suck, but for Pete's sake, does it matter?



True.  Hey, like I said, I'm all for giving someone a last meal, of whatever they wish.  But regardless of cost, the guy was a dick for doing what he did, and the staff was just plain stupid.  But thats just my opinion.   Kill the guy, keep him locked for life with no parole....either way, if the person is that much of a dirtbag, pick an option and roll with it.


----------



## MJS (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If an inmate attacks a guard, wouldn't it be appropriate to use deadly force? I think so. Why do we have to take it farther then that?



As tempting as it is, it doesn't work that way.  This is just one of the things that one of my insts. investigates as part of his job.  He's a Capt. in the DOC.  He's had to look at many use of force cases, some of which have been perfectly justified for what the inmates did to the CO, and in many cases, the COs actions werent justified.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

If the sanctity of life is worth protecting, its worth protecting in all cases. The exceptions nullify it as a moral precept. They make it arbitrary and relative. That's why the greater good is always used to justify the murder of undesirables. Sometimes morality forces you into tough decisions. This is one of them.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If the sanctity of life is worth protecting, its worth protecting in all cases.


That is a fallacy.
Sometimes taking one life protects countless others. 
(and unless you are at least vegetarian....)



> The exceptions nullify it as a moral precept. They make it arbitrary and relative. That's why the greater good is always used to justify the murder of undesirables. Sometimes morality forces you into tough decisions. This is one of them.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



The absolute of the tabu of taking a human life is offset by necessity of self defense or war.

We are not talking about 'undesirables' we are talking about people who have and will damage the structure of society with their own disregard for the sanctity of the life and well being of others.

This is not about killing retarded people, gays or communists, but putting dangerous criminals away for good. You know, those kinds that are a danger to even the staff of the facility they are being held at. (and no, I don't consider locking a human being up from 23 out of 24 hours and put them for 'exercise' into a small cage humane)


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

How is killing someone in a cage self defense? Aren't they defenseless and at your mercy?

If we can execute one undesirable we can execute another. It always happens like that.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 28, 2011)

The problem for me is we cannot be sure that every person being executed is guilty.  If there were certainty of no innocent person being killed, I would not have issue with the death penalty.  However, there are multiple instances of men being convicted and sentnced to death in error.  How many innocent men dying are worth the guilty paying the ultimate price?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

Good point.  Death is permanent.

One more thing I'd like to add is that the idea that we can kill for the greater good is very dangerous.  The individual cannot control how the greater good is going to be defined.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 28, 2011)

is there any crime you think is so bad it deserves death?


----------



## granfire (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> How is killing someone in a cage self defense? Aren't they defenseless and at your mercy?
> 
> If we can execute one undesirable we can execute another. It always happens like that.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



You are splitting hairs.

I said killing in self defense has always been excluded from the tabu of 'thou shalt not kill' 


And I don't say were 'it always happens like that' except in Texas, of course.

There are crimes that, while terrible, don't really call for the death penalty, since it seems to be a means of revenge.

Other cases, well....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> You are splitting hairs.
> 
> I said killing in self defense has always been excluded from the tabu of 'thou shalt not kill'
> 
> ...



If it's not self defense, how do you justify your support of the death penalty?  What is the underlying moral principle you are drawing on?


----------



## Buka (Sep 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If the sanctity of life is worth protecting, its worth protecting in all cases. The exceptions nullify it as a moral precept. They make it arbitrary and relative. That's why the greater good is always used to justify the murder of undesirables. Sometimes morality forces you into tough decisions. This is one of them.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



I couldn't disagree with this more if I was paid to do so.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 28, 2011)

agreed

some folks just aint right, and they wil never be right, nor will it ever be safe for them to be loose



Buka said:


> I couldn't disagree with this more if I was paid to do so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 29, 2011)

Here's the terrifying truth that I think is worth pondering.  You cannot control this.  You can't control who society decides to kill because of convenience.  You can convince yourself that its for the "greater good" and pretend to go along with it and hope that your number never comes up, but there are no guarantees.  The "greater good" is a constantly shifting bar and it never is and never will be defined by what you want.  This is the essence of moral relativism.


----------



## MJS (Sep 29, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If the sanctity of life is worth protecting, its worth protecting in all cases. The exceptions nullify it as a moral precept. They make it arbitrary and relative. That's why the greater good is always used to justify the murder of undesirables. Sometimes morality forces you into tough decisions. This is one of them.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



So, am I safe to assume you're more in favor of life w/o parole vs. the death penalty?  Hey, I'm for either one.


----------



## Buka (Sep 29, 2011)

Hard to satisfy everyone's idea of what society should be like. Wouldn't it be great if we could all have our philosophical ideals met?
Here's a fantasy of mine, so everybody gets what they want....
Head of the household registers how he/she wants crime against their family handled. Death penalty where it applies, carried out within 48 hours of the appeal after the conviction. It's even fair to the criminal element as we can allow them access to the registration at the local city hall so they can decide who they want to commit crime against. 

JAIL - your family provides your food. I know, some don't have family and some families are so poor they couldn't afford it. Too bad, they don't eat. I know, that's too harsh. Okay, so on our income tax form you can check off if you want EXTRA money taken from your taxes to feed and care for the prison population. I don't, so I don't pay. And I'm not about to impose my harsh ideals on anyone else, so they can check off on their tax form as they see fit. I'd rather have my money used to help deserving kids and families (you know, ones that DON'T murder, rape etc.)

The prison population will be forced to work hard, too, if not, no cookies and milk.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 29, 2011)

billcihak said:


> One, if you take an innocent life you lose yours.



what about a guilty life?


----------



## granfire (Sep 29, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> what about a guilty life?



Dealing with the guilty ones kills your innocence...whether you kill them or not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2011)

If corporations are people, can we execute them for murder?

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Oct 1, 2011)

makalakumu said:


> if corporations are people, can we execute them for murder?
> 
> Sent from my eris using tapatalk




:d


----------



## billc (Oct 1, 2011)

I imagine it would cost a lot more to give a corporation a last meal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I imagine it would cost a lot more to give a corporation a last meal.



Maybe not considering the dude's meal up thread.  Lol!


----------

