Texas drops special last meal for death row inmates

[MothBalls]

When I first saw the headline I thought it wasn't right. It's always been "tradition" to give the condemned a last meal of choice. Then I read the article and this statement changed my mind;

"It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege. One which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim," Whitmire wrote.

Then it made sense to me. I agree. They don't deserve any special privileges.

Original Story (CNN)

[BossMark]

Agreed they deserve the same fate as their victims, I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in the UK

[AVGWarhawk]

In before Mookie!

[Hottentot]

That will teach them!

I have to admit I don't understand. They are going to die. Do they really care if they get to eat porridge with strawberries or not? Or does it matter?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

That will teach them!

I have to admit I don't understand. They are going to die. Do they really care if they get to eat porridge with strawberries or not? Or does it matter?

No it does not apparently....

[Skybird]

It is disgusting and tells something about the issue when such a profanity gets attention while those defending death penalty do not care a bit about the high quota of judicial errors leading to innocents getting assassinated by the state or perpetrators who committed other crimes of less severity, but not eh crime they get killed for.

It's collective shizophrenia illustrating how to walk over one's grandmother.

I also want to remin d of an old argumenbt of mine. Punishement is a measure that by definition needs the subject to live, and in modern legal understanding this measurement is meant to sanction and alter the (unwanted) behaviour of the subject. Execution does not do that, and statistics have shown often enough that the threat of being caught and sentenced does deter offenders. also, psychology and sociology know and have described sinc ehte early 70s, I think, that especially young males tend to manouver and entangle themselves in situations of conflict and violence from which they cannot retreat without needing to break through a psychological deadlock, and the hormone cocktail of adolescence just stands against that (which is a reflection of our animalistic heritage: in order to impress and attract the young females willing to mate).

Whether a subject sentenced to death gets a last meal or not, is the most unimportant of all questions. Much mor eimportant is why so many people in some countries accept to murder so many later proven innocents just in order to not rethink their desire for revenge.

To me, "death penalty" is a contradiction in itself. I only accept executiuon in some very serious and severe cases as a tool of prevention against future crime - may it be the the subject continues to direct crime from inside or outside the prison, may it be that the subject becomes the motive for others to ciommit serious crimes (in order to ake revenge or to blackmail the state for releasing thre subject). Execution as a tool of prevention, a means of fighting certain serious forms of crime: yes. Execution to please peoples' desire for revenge, or as a legal "penalty": No, that is illogical and self-contradictory.

How absurd the show really is you can see that senetenced subjects often have to wait another youcpole of years, up to twnty years until the executiuon is carried out. And then look at the wholwe ceremonial BS around it while truth is it would be very easy to quickly and painlessly kill a human, if that is what one does want. It all is absurd. And schizophrenic.

Since da pope is in da house and I did some Latin quotes already today, this: "Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - The toughest justice is the greatest injustice." Cicero.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

In before Mookie!

Haha

I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I don't really see the harm in giving them a "last meal" of their choice, but within reason. Ordering all the crap Brewer did is not within reason and should have been denied and/or scaled back. But if they want to take it away, it's not like they're denying prisoners some basic necessity of life.

I think it's a strange thing for the state senator to get all up in arms about.

[AVGWarhawk]

I think it's a strange thing for the state senator to get all up in arms about.

Slow day.

[Penguin]

"It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege. One which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim," Whitmire wrote.

I find this argumentation extremely off.
If the murderer is not the landlord, he didn't provide shelter for the victim, if it is not the cook, he didn't provide food for the vic. If the victim crapped himself out of fear, the killer probably didn't provide toilet paper.
Should all this also not be granted?

@Hottentot: porridge itself can be seen as cruel and unusual punishment!

However I think the last meal is more something for the people who cater the death candidate, to make them feel better. It's the same psychology why one of the firing squad guys gets a blank, or - if I understood it right - when killing through poison, 3 persons turn the switches, while only one switch triggers the lethal injection.
These little mechanisms are all meant to remove the feeling of guilt from the personal.

[Diopos]

How about automatically condemning the judge and jurors to death if it is ever discovered that they sent an innocent man to execution?



That would be at leat some form of justice in societies that believe they need the death penatly to protect the life of the innocent. If you're "pro death", go all the way.

.

[AVGWarhawk]

If the murderer is not the landlord, he didn't provide shelter for the victim, if it is not the cook, he didn't provide food for the vic. If the victim crapped himself out of fear, the killer probably didn't provide toilet paper.
Should all this also not be granted?

If it could not be granted legally it probably would not. As humans we are to show some sort of civility in all matters. Roll in the tp and magazines to read.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by BossMark

Agreed they deserve the same fate as their victims, I wish they would bring back the death penalty here in the UK

-burning on a pile?
-stoning?
-cutting with heated blunt saw?
anyways...
"It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege"-leaving aside the discussion whether it is appropriate to kill anyone, I'm wondering is it appropriate to use a killing method that causes suffering (leaving aside that it is against some legal regulations)?
What will be next? No last cig? No last statement? No executioner? (to spare him the sense of guilt)

Originally Posted by Diopos

How about automatically condemning the judge and jurors to death if it is ever discovered that they sent an innocent man to execution?



That would be at leat some form of justice in societies that believe they need the death penatly to protect the life of the innocent. If you're "pro death", go all the way.

.

a big

[mapuc]

I'm against Capital punishment, though our history, many innocent have been sentence to death while they were in fact innocent.

Not before the day, where they can be 500% sure, that's the right person they have sent to the deathrow. When that day come, I will also be for Capital punishment


furthermore it SHALL not take so many years from sentence is said, to the time where the sentence is being executed.

But I have to admit, that there are cases, where I DO agree. Yesterday, I read in a danish newspaper, about this man from Texas, who, with some friends, had turtured and killed a handicapped man.


Markus

[JU_88]

I actually think we could use a come back of captial punishment in the UK.
I think we kinda need it, our jails are over crowding and our sentencing is pathetic.
To most hardend criminals in the UK, the legal system here is a joke.

And Im sick of the Uber liberals leaping to defend the human rights of total scumbags.
Do criminals consider the human rights of their victim when they murder/rape/beat them?
No they don't, so **** theirs!

As much as I hate to say it, in places like Dubai / Saudi Arabia where they cut off the hands of thieves, although that is truely inhumane, You gotta hand it to them (no pun intended) It actually works, virtually nobody steals anything over there.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

As much as I hate to say it, in places like Dubai / Saudi Arabia where they cut off the hands of thieves, although that is truely inhumane, You gotta hand it to them (no pun intended) It actually works, virtually nobody steals anything over there.

Too easy a conclusion. In many Muhameddan countries a good ammount of crime gets settled outside police recognition or report and since this gets resolved outside the formal procedure of the legal system, it does not appear in the official crime statistics. Sharia law makes heavy use of negotiators that serve as mediators between conflicting parties and that are are not that much interested in questions of guilt and who is responsiblpa but to find a way that allows all parties to save their face and to maintain the appearance in public that nothing has happened.

I would handle official crime statistics from such countries with extreme caution. They are misleading due to an understanding of law and justice that has not much in common with Western understanding of these terms.