Texas draws the line on death row last meals

Post Reply New Topic

I have mixed feelings about the use of the death sentance, if we want to cut the cost of prison when we should work out ways to make the inmates do more useful work. If they refuse to work, then perhapes we should use concrete box known as a supermax cell to keep them in.

I wonder how many aspies Texas has executed just because they didn't look a cop in the eye or seem upset that someone died...

This strikes me as a diversion from the core issue of capital punishment.

But if you are going to indulge in capital punishment (and I do think it's an indulgence) then I feel that it is no bad thing to stand for the principle that no matter how heinous the crime, the offender is still a human being, and entitled to a degree of dignity, notwithstanding their failure to extend the same to another.

Are we barbarians? Are we so uncivilized that we will reduce ourselves to pettiness? Or are we merely so impotent that we can only rely on bullying to make us feel like we are in control of the society that we have built?

Do you have any idea of what some (most) of them did to get to death row? They're not good enough to be called humans or animals. Even the lesser ones are at least murderers.



Pettiness as in the issue over the last meal?
Okay, I'll meet you part way and grant a last meal of choice since, as a conservative, I'm about tradition and whatnot. That is ONE meal and one meal only, not one from half of the restaurants in the area. Did you see all the food that guy ordered? No GD way he could have eaten all of that. It becomes a matter of principle at that point: don't put more on your plate than you can eat, especially when your not the one paying for it.

BTW: Is it possible to have a thread of any length where bullying isn't mentioned???
What's with this fascination with bullying and what does it have to do with this thread?

Bullying, is defined as "the use of force or coercion to affect others,particularly when habitual and involving an imbalance of power." (Wikipedia)

The same definition could be given for government.

Yes I know but some people won't let a thread die without throwing the bully thing in there for effect.
Not so much in this forum but it crops up a lot more in the Politics, Religion, and Philosophy forum.
If you're sensitive DON'T GO THERE!

Although I am personally opposed to the death penalty, there are some pro-death-penalty arguments that seem reasonable or at least understandable to me. What creeps me out is the argument that we should execute people in order to save money. Putting a price tag on human life should be beneath us as a society. Far, far beneath us.

There's the fundamental failure, as I see it. Hyperbole aside, they are still human beings--they might not be worthy human beings, and they are (leaving other arguments aside) guilty of heinous acts. But they are still human beings, and the products of the societies in which they lived. By using rhethoric like, "not good enough to be called humans," you create the implication that your society bears no responsibility for any of the totality of circumstances that led to their actions. At the end of the day, the criminal is still a criminal, and nothing will diminish their culpability. But we should still be asking ourselves, "What could we have done differently to prevent this? Will we do anything differently going forward?"

Poverty and mental illness are enormously correlated to crime (not just violent crime). Now, I grant you that correlation and causation are not one and the same, but at what point are we reaping what we have sown when the policies that put barriers in the way of welfare and mental health treatment march hand in hand with an ever increasing prison population?



I don't disagree with you--and abuse of a privilege is certainly worthy of censure. Frankly, I always thought of the last meal as rather a sham ritual, so I have a hard time getting too bent out of shape.



I think it is relevant. Here is a person who is helpless. This person knows the hour of his death, and those who will be the instruments of that death are all around him. And the power seeks to impose yet one more denial of privilege. And to what end? Does the denial of a last meal make one person any safer? Does it mean that the prisoner will be more compliant with the process of the prisoner's execution? Does it make any substantive improvement to our society?

Or does it merely permit another legislator to stand up, puff out his chest, and proclaim his "tough on crime" credentials?

I think it is often very helpful for us to look at ourselves and our collective behaviour through a critical lens. Is our conduct the best that it can be in the circumstances? Refraining from pettiness reaffirms that we, as a society, hold to a higher standard of conduct.

There is a profound danger in labeling anyone "not fit to be called human".
Hitler convinced Germans that Jews were not humans in order to exterminate them.
Similarly, some people now paint Nazis as "monsters" and try to convince themselves that they were isolated boogeymen rather than common men.
When we decide that some people are not really people, it blinds us to the dark side of human nature. Then we are less able to combat it in ourselves and our society.

<<<This.

Even before persecuting the Jews, Hitler killed tons of people like ourselves, who were considered "mentally unfit."

I agree in part but, again, I think that under the circumstances we treat our inmates as fair as can be expected. We've come a long way since the era that Cool Hand Luke and Brubaker were set in. Too far from it in my opinion but what do i know, I'm just a psychopathic conservative bully.

Big BIG difference between the wholesale condemnation and genocide of a people based on religion or ethnicity as opposed to those who have actiually commited a crime befitting capital punishment.

I've studied the Third Reich well enough to know what took place there. In fact the Schutzstaffel has been one of my Aspie obesssions so I know more about them and what made them tick than the average person.

True, but "mentally unfit" is a very subjective term.

So is "capital offense."

In Florida they put parameters on the inmates last meal. It can't cost more than $50 (or thereabouts) must be obtained locally (NO T-bone steak flown in from Mortons in NYC) and no alcohol.

I'm very surprised to hear that Texas allowed a single person to order 7 entree's (perhaps the dude had the idea of suicide by stomach rupture?)

$50 is more than enough for a good meal.



So am I!
Texas is known to be rather spartan about things like that.