Should a death penalty inmate be given life saving surgery?

[OscarTheGrouch]

Be it on death row waiting execution or life sentence.



Should the state pay for a surgery to save the life of a criminal that will never again be free?

[skunk]

Death Row is an appalling enough institution without those held on it being left to die of curable illness while they wait to know whether they will be pardoned, exonerated or killed. Everybody should have access to proper healthcare, and nobody should be executed by the state.

[bc008]

Death Row is an appalling enough institution without those held on it being left to die of curable illness while they wait to know whether they will be pardoned, exonerated or killed. Everybody should have access to proper healthcare, and nobody should be executed by the state.

I completely agree.

I think their is a big difference between dying of a probably painful illness, and a halfway humane death on death row.

[ucfgrad93]

While I disagree with skunk about the death penalty, I agree with him that the prisoner has a right to health care. He is a ward of the state, and they have an obligation to take care of him until his sentence is carried out.

[r.j.s]

I say yes, they should be giving the surgery to save their life. However, if the inmate chooses not to take it, then they should honor that too. They may just want to get it over with.

[thejadedmonkey]

He is a ward of the state, and they have an obligation to take care of him until his sentence is carried out.

That could not have been said any better.

[OscarTheGrouch]

do these opinions include transplants? chemo? other expensive treatments that alot of free people cannot get because they cannot afford it

[iJohnHenry]

Transplants are decided by a medical committee.

They use a point system to gauge the suitability of a potential recipient.

It's unlikely they would favour an death-row inmate over a husband/wife with children.

[Delta608]

Be it on death row waiting execution or life sentence.



Should the state pay for a surgery to save the life of a criminal that will never again be free?


No, a life sentence means just that, should not artificially make it longer ....Should have been executed right after his/her first appeal...

[Desertrat]

In order that we maintain a government of law and maintain due process, IMO skunk has it correct as to health care. That we disagree about the death penalty itself is irrelevant to the issue.

'Rat

[dukebound85]

if they have medical insurance to do so then sure. if not, i dont think taxpayers should have to foot the bill

heck, i can get surgery without insurance or my own cash...aka i dont ask others to pay for me

with that said, can prisioners have health insurance?

[iShater]

if they have medical insurance to do so then sure. if not, i dont think taxpayers should have to foot the bill

heck, i can get surgery without insurance or my own cash...aka i dont ask others to pay for me

The problem is that while they are in state custody, they probably cannot go and work and earn and get insurance right?

While I am pro death penalty, considering how many cases have been thrown out in Illinois (my state) and others (Texas for example) because of DNA evidence or issues with the prosecution where innocent people went to death row, no treatment should be withheld.

my 2c.

[dukebound85]

The problem is that while they are in state custody, they probably cannot go and work and earn and get insurance right?

While I am pro death penalty, considering how many cases have been thrown out in Illinois (my state) and others (Texas for example) because of DNA evidence or issues with the prosecution where innocent people went to death row, no treatment should be withheld.

my 2c.

yet treatment can be withheld from law abiding citizens

i think that is f'd up and would giver preference to those people over prisoners 100%

[kavika411]

To the OP:

Yes, that is a no-brainer. You give give life saving surgery to a death penalty inmate, unless you wish to shift the justice system from the judiciary/juries and put it in the hands of a lynch mob.

[The above post brought to you by someone who embraces the death penalty.]

[iTeen]

Or they could just put them at the bottom of the list, and save people that can't afford it. And I don't really see the point if they are going to be put to death anyways.

I don't see murderers (and that type) as any different then rats.

They can burn in hell for I care.

Flame away. :cool:

[Prof.]

I'm gonna have to say no. He/She obviously committed a dastardly crime. A crime so unforgivable they were given the death sentence. It would be a waste of time and money. Why save someone just to turn around to execute them? I'd just move up the execution date. Problem solved.

[Sun Baked]

The problem is that while they are in state custody, they probably cannot go and work and earn and get insurance right?

While I am pro death penalty, considering how many cases have been thrown out in Illinois (my state) and others (Texas for example) because of DNA evidence or issues with the prosecution where innocent people went to death row, no treatment should be withheld.

my 2c.

There is that one county where every single case a DA in Texas had a hand in his entire 36 career is being reviewed. 19 cases so far overturned.

No other county in America -- and almost no state, for that matter -- has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/29/after_dallas_das_death_19_convictions_are_undone/

And it isn't like he was just a non-person historically, he had a hand in some very high profile cases in US history.

Edit: this might not extend to death penalty cases, but it is troubling that something like this still hasn't been fully corrected. And should have been caught years ago.

[.Andy]

do these opinions include transplants? chemo? other expensive treatments that alot of free people cannot get because they cannot afford it
Transplants and chemo shouldn't be available to only those that can afford them in the first place. You're beef is with your medical system, not with prison inmates.


As much as I abhor state-sanctioned murder to satisfy peoples sanctimony and blood lust, I couldn't think of anything could less human than calling for medical treatment to be withheld from anyone in need. A prisoner being murdered at the hand of the state in 2008 is indefensible, however a prisoner dying in agony or fear through withheld health care is just plain disgusting. It says a lot about the intellectual maturity of the people that think this would be acceptable.

[Lau]

Transplants and chemo shouldn't be available to only those that can afford them in the first place. You're beef is with your medical system, not with prison inmates.


As much as I abhor state-sanctioned murder to satisfy peoples sanctimony and blood lust, I couldn't think of anything could less human than calling for medical treatment to be withheld from anyone in need. A prisoner being murdered at the hand of the state in 2008 is indefensible, however a prisoner dying in agony or fear through withheld health care is just plain disgusting. It says a lot about the intellectual maturity of the people that think this would be acceptable.

Blimey, well said, .Andy, I couldn't agree more with everything you just said.

Some comments in this thread really highlight the horrendous situation with a private healthcare system, before you even introduce the inhumanity of the death penalty into the equation.

[OscarTheGrouch]

I will say that I would not advocate witholding treatment of something that caused someone pain- i do believe for the most part they should have their pain managed. I will say that if a patient is diagnosed with cancer i do not believe they have the right to the latest medical advances with chemo and what not. why should they get better treatment than people who are free, but just cannot afford it?

and for the sake of argument, we are assuming definite guilt, no grey area for the justice system to have "maybe" screwed up, this doesnt need to be a pro death penalty debate, or our justice system is imperfect etc etc. its a simple question- assume guilt for the purposes of this question.

[Peterkro]

I will say that I would not advocate witholding treatment of something that caused someone pain- i do believe for the most part they should have their pain managed. I will say that if a patient is diagnosed with cancer i do not believe they have the right to the latest medical advances with chemo and what not. why should they get better treatment than people who are free, but just cannot afford it?

and for the sake of argument, we are assuming definite guilt, no grey area for the justice system to have "maybe" screwed up, this doesnt need to be a pro death penalty debate, or our justice system is imperfect etc etc. its a simple question- assume guilt for the purposes of this question.

I think the question here is not why are prisoners getting the treatment (in fact they mostly don't diagnoses of serious illness in the US prison population being notoriously bad) but why people not in prison are denied it.

[atszyman]

I will say that I would not advocate witholding treatment of something that caused someone pain- i do believe for the most part they should have their pain managed. I will say that if a patient is diagnosed with cancer i do not believe they have the right to the latest medical advances with chemo and what not. why should they get better treatment than people who are free, but just cannot afford it?

This is a beef with the healthcare system set up in this country. No one should be kept from the latest medical advances that could save their lives just because they cannot afford it.

We have a military to protect and defend everyone in this country, why don't we have healthcare that does the same?

[MrSmith]

They aren't deprived of food are they?

[mactastic]

Should a prisoner on death row be supplied with food? Water? Breathable air?

I mean, if we're just going to kill them... :rolleyes:

[Apple Ink]

Nobody[/i] should be executed by the state.

While I disagree with skunk about the death penalty, I agree with him that the prisoner has a right to health care. He is a ward of the state, and they have an obligation to take care of him until his sentence is carried out.

Capital Punishment is essential in ensuring the integrity of the community! A criminal committing a Capital Worthy crime must also be consciously afraid of the appalling thought and this is essential!

As for the OP's question.... they should let the prisoner choose for himself! Other than that if the recovery period of the surgery is far too long and the prisoner is not in pain prior to the surgery... the authorities should consider hastening!

[skunk]

Capital Punishment is essential in ensuring the integrity of the community! A criminal committing a Capital Worthy crime must also be consciously afraid of the appalling thought and this is essential!What nonsense! Capital punishment (or State-sanctioned premeditated and cold-blooded murder, as I prefer to call it) has had ZERO effect on the "integrity of the community". The deterrent effect is NIL, and a single false conviction - and there are many - should be enough to invalidate the entire concept for all right-thinking people.

[scotthayes]

Capital Punishment is essential in ensuring the integrity of the community! A criminal committing a Capital Worthy crime must also be consciously afraid of the appalling thought and this is essential!

As for the OP's question.... they should let the prisoner choose for himself! Other than that if the recovery period of the surgery is far too long and the prisoner is not in pain prior to the surgery... the authorities should consider hastening!

Well now you are just talking complete bollocks.

Latest figures: USA (with death penalty) 5.7 homicides per 100,000. UK (without death penalty) 2.03 homicides per 100,000 people

As for the actual question. Of course they should be given life saving surgery, how sick does a system have to be where they let a person why medicine could save their life.

[Apple Ink]

Im quite sure there are other countries in the World other than USA!

And having taken up psychology as a minor with Biology..... I'm not going to change my opinion and thats that! No more comments! I figure the forum is way too hostile to discuss these things!

[mkrishnan]

and for the sake of argument, we are assuming definite guilt

It's easy to fiat that for the purpose of discussion, but it is the utter failure of the justice system in the US, and I think in every other country as well, to consistently successfully classify any prisoners in this way, that makes this hypothetical argument an unreasonable precondition.

Even if death row prisoners were absolutely guilty, I'd still be against the death penalty. But that's not even relevant, because the absolute guilt criteria is as far away from reality as can be.

That being said, until the time of execution, I agree with the sentiment that prisoners of all kinds are wards of the state. Does that mean that I place their needs at a higher level than the needs of the poor? No, but the state has direct and sole ability to meet the needs of prisoners and so I expect it to provide adequate healthcare to them, including expensive but medically necessary procedures. And I (help) fund the state to do that.

[.Andy]

Im quite sure there are other countries in the World other than USA!
And the majority of modern western countries have rejected the death penalty as inhumane, unproductive, and a miscarriage of justice long ago. The company the USA keeps (http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty) in state-sanctioned killing of their citizens should make you embarrassed. 88 per cent of all known executions in 2007 took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA (from the amnesty link above).

And having taken up psychology as a minor with Biology..... I'm not going to change my opinion and thats that!
No one is asking you to change your opinion, they are illustrating the fallacies you present to support your stance. Surely during your psychology/biology education you wrote essays arguing a point and backing it up with evidence? Even at the lowest levels of academia opinions are considered useless without research/evidence to back them up. No less should apply when you're cheerleading for death.

No more comments! I figure the forum is way too hostile to discuss these things!
The views that anyone should be killed in a cold blooded premeditated fashion should be met with hostility. Especially when they're founded on fallacies and opinions distinct from reality.

[mkrishnan]

And the majority of modern western countries have rejected the death penalty as inhumane, unproductive, and a miscarriage of justice long ago.

Before we go all US bashing, I'll remind you that the American state of Michigan was the first English speaking governance in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Michigan) to ban the death penalty.... ;)

I spent nearly 30 years living there... I grew up in a place without the death penalty. I can't believe I live in a place now that has it....

[zap2]

yet treatment can be withheld from law abiding citizens

i think that is f'd up

I agree that the current state of affairs is bad. But lets give everyone treatment....then we're good!

[Apple Ink]

I'll just say.... a quite rich spoilt brat of 24 lives in a state which bans capital punishment. He knows that his dad can scoot him out of any place in jail! He's perfectly sane!

He kidnaps a 5 year old sweet girl and enslaves her.... repeatedly raping her in some real cruel brutal torture.... He does that every day..... He gives her stinking food and dirty sewage water do drink and keeps her in total darkness... never to see light! After some months he kills her.... slowly and gradually!

Now you might say that he's mad but he isnt! These are known as cannibal emotions and every sane person on this Earth has them! The best and the strongest way through which we suppress these feelings is....... guess what..... fear of capital punishment!
You might not feel this now but the capital punishment is a very very strong factor controlling such feelings from your sub conscious!

But the point is..... even after knowing all this I believe that capital punishment is and IS inhumane because whatever a person might have done but we DO NOT have the right to claim his/her life! Nobody gives us that authority!

[.Andy]

I'll just say.... a quite rich spoilt brat of 24 lives in a state which bans capital punishment. He knows that his dad can scoot him out of any place in jail! He's perfectly sane!

He kidnaps a 5 year old sweet girl and enslaves her.... repeatedly raping her in some real cruel brutal torture.... He does that every day..... He gives her stinking food and dirty sewage water do drink and keeps her in total darkness... never to see light! After some months he kills her.... slowly and gradually!
Sounds horrific.

Now you might say that he's mad but he isnt! These are known as cannibal emotions and every sane person on this Earth has them! The best and the strongest way through which we suppress these feelings is....... guess what..... fear of capital punishment!
Got a link to some studies that show this relationship between 'cannibal emotions' and 'capital punishment'.

You might not feel this now but the capital punishment is a very very strong factor controlling such feelings from your sub conscious!
No it's not. We don't have capital punishment where I live and there aren't people raping 5 year olds. Nor are father's scooting their sons out of jail.

[skunk]

But the point is..... even after knowing all this I believe that capital punishment is and IS inhumane because whatever a person might have done but we DO NOT have the right to claim his/her life! Nobody gives us that authority!You have just contradicted your entire foolish argument. Get a grip.

[Peterkro]

I'll just say.... a quite rich spoilt brat of 24 lives in a state which bans capital punishment. He knows that his dad can scoot him out of any place in jail! He's perfectly sane!

He kidnaps a 5 year old sweet girl and enslaves her.... repeatedly raping her in some real cruel brutal torture.... He does that every day..... He gives her stinking food and dirty sewage water do drink and keeps her in total darkness... never to see light! After some months he kills her.... slowly and gradually!

Now you might say that he's mad but he isnt! These are known as cannibal emotions and every sane person on this Earth has them! The best and the strongest way through which we suppress these feelings is....... guess what..... fear of capital punishment!
You might not feel this now but the capital punishment is a very very strong factor controlling such feelings from your sub conscious!

But the point is..... even after knowing all this I believe that capital punishment is and IS inhumane because whatever a person might have done but we DO NOT have the right to claim his/her life! Nobody gives us that authority!

I'd advise you to change courses to something like say Media studies. Your present course seems to be making you mentally ill.

[Dmac77]

if they have medical insurance to do so then sure. if not, i dont think taxpayers should have to foot the bill

heck, i can get surgery without insurance or my own cash...aka i dont ask others to pay for me

with that said, can prisioners have health insurance?

Agreed! It is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for some murderous scum! Why should they have a right to life saving medical care, when they ended someone else's life? They deserve to die just the way they killed/tortured their victim. Why should a murder/rapist be allowed to be treated like a human after they kill, rape, or do both to someone?

Don

[skunk]

Agreed! It is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for some murderous scum! Why should they have a right to life saving medical care, when they ended someone else's life? They deserve to die just the way they killed/tortured their victim. Why should a murder/rapist be allowed to be treated like a human after they kill, rape, or do both to someone?You appear to have no idea that people can be and are falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit. To call them "scum" is neither useful nor enlightening. To allow a person to die through inaction when they are 100% under your control and care is inhumane and unforgivable. You propose to mandate utter inhumanity while at the same time asserting that inhumanity deserves to be punished by death. Try for a little more consistency, please.

[Dmac77]

You appear to have no idea that people can be and are falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit. To call them "scum" is neither useful nor enlightening. To allow a person to die through inaction when they are 100% under your control and care is inhumane and unforgivable. You propose to mandate utter inhumanity while at the same time asserting that inhumanity deserves to be punished by death. Try for a little more consistency, please.

Ok, after they lose their first appeal we can call them inhuman scum agreed?

Don

[skunk]

Ok, after they lose their first appeal we can call them inhuman scum agreed?Never. They are as human as you or I. Everyone is capable of the greatest good or the greatest ill.

[Dmac77]

Never. They are as human as you or I. Everyone is capable of the greatest good or the greatest ill.

And if I ever become a murderous rapist piece of scum I'll be fine not being treated like a human, because all I would be is a murderous piece of scum.

Don

[skunk]

And if I ever become a murderous rapist piece of scum I'll be fine not being treated like a human, because all I would be is a murderous piece of scum.I trust that you will be equally sanguine if you are falsely accused and falsely convicted.

[Dmac77]

I trust that you will be equally sanguine if you are falsely accused and falsely convicted.

Skunk,

I have confidence in our justice system. DNA doesn't lie. Not everything is a conspiracy you know.

Don

[skunk]

I have confidence in our justice system.Unfounded confidence. You will learn.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/deathpenaltycases.htm

[Dmac77]

Unfounded confidence. You will learn.

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/deathpenaltycases.htm

I said our system. As in the US's system. Not your system.

Don

[skunk]

I said our system. As in the US's system. Not your system.I suggest you try reading the linked cases. Our system does not have a death penalty.

[Dmac77]

I suggest you try reading the linked cases. Our system does not have a death penalty.

You'll notice that only one of the cases was overturned because of DNA (which was discovered after conviction), and that the other was overturned due to inadequate legal representation. Every other case (that was overturned) doesn't pertain to the US.

As I said, DNA doesn't lie.

Don

PS-

My bad for saying the UK has the death penalty. I forgot your country is turning into a socialist haven.

[dukebound85]

as i have brought up earlier....when the law abiding citizens can be denied life saving health care due to not having the means, why should those of death row automatically be granted it AT the taxpayer's expense

if our country did not deny life saving health care to anyone, i would have NO problem letting those on deathrow be treated. however, that is not the case and there has to be a point system in a sense. in my opinion, the interests of law abiding citizens outweigh those that are in prision

yes, there may be individuals be falsely accused and in prision but that is the system we are in unfortunately

[skunk]

as i have brought up earlier....when the law abiding citizens can be denied life saving health care due to not having the means, why should those of death row automatically be granted it AT the taxpayer's expense

if our country did not deny life saving health care to anyone, i would have NO problem letting those on deathrow be treated. however, that is not the case and there has to be a point system in a sense. in my opinion, the interests of law abiding citizens outweigh those that are in prision

yes, there may be individuals be falsely accused and in prision but that is the system we are in unfortunatelyAs has been said, that is an indictment of your healthcare system, not a reason to let people die from preventable illness while in your charge.

My bad for saying the UK has the death penalty. I forgot your country is turning into a socialist haven.Your opinionated, drive-by [posting] is getting tedious.

[Dmac77]

As has been said, that is an indictment of your healthcare system, not a reason to let people die from preventable illness while in your charge.

Like I said skunk... innocent humans deserve health care before murderous scum, which don't deserve it at all.

EDIT: Your opinionated, drive-by [posting] is getting tedious.
I'm a teenager get used to it.

Don

[skunk]

Like I said skunk... innocent humans deserve health care before murderous scum, which don't deserve it at all.Please refer to my post above.

[blackfox]

It is, of course, a matter of opinion, but:

In my mind, it is not the apparent character of the criminal that matters, as the character of the society that deals with him.

Vengeance should not be institutionalized in the criminal justice system, no matter how heinous the individual.

Btw, I like how a shadow thread is developing discussing the merits of a government health plan.

[dukebound85]

As has been said, that is an indictment of your healthcare system, not a reason to let people die from preventable illness while in your charge.

well thats what we are stuck with and we have to deal with it

what argument can be made to favor death row inmates vs law abiding citizens when it comes down to who should get the life saving health care?

option 1) death row inmate is guilty and it would be more beneficial to society to save the innocent law abiding citizen

option 2) death row inmate may be innocent but not completely sure whereas the law abiding citizen is innocent at which point, they each have a valid claim but only the citizen is KNOWN to be innocnet

in either option, why should the inmate receive the life saving health care over the citizen? why should society deny him that care while giving it to the inmate?

a citizen without insurance or money WILL be turned away from a life saving opertion. what is this "in charge" you speak of? someone "in charge" made the call to turn the citizen away did they not? if you say the responsibility is that of society's, then should society help the person who can not afford the health care just as you are saying that since the prision (aka society enforcing its laws) in "in charge" of the prisioner that the prisioner should get the care?

[Peterkro]

Like I said skunk... innocent humans deserve health care before murderous scum, which don't deserve it at all.

EDIT:
I'm a teenager get used to it.

Don

I don't think you being a teenager has anything to do with it. The fact you don't know your arse from your elbow has a lot to do with it.

[skunk]

EDIT:
I'm a teenager get used to it.Callow and intemperate youth is not necessarily an attribute to be worn with pride.

[Dmac77]

Callow and intemperate youth is not necessarily an attribute to be worn with pride.

When I'm right it is.

Oh and bye the way I support using prison inmates organs for the donor program (after they die of course).

Don

[EricNau]

in either option, why should the inmate receive the life saving health care over the citizen? why should society deny him that care while giving it to the inmate?
That inconsistency is a result of a poor healthcare system, not a problem related to the humane treatment of prisoners.

[blackfox]

in either option, why should the inmate receive the life saving health care over the citizen? why should society deny him that care while giving it to the inmate?

Well, now you see the benefit of universal healthcare. Innocent or incarcerated, in a modern, industrialized nation people should have basic health care taken care of, don't you think?

[skunk]

When I'm right it is.You should perhaps concentrate your efforts on growing up rather than baying for blood on the internet.

[Dmac77]

Well, now you see the benefit of universal healthcare. Innocent or incarcerated, in a modern, industrialized nation people should have basic health care taken care of, don't you think?

You forgot socialist.

Don

PS-

I like blood skunk, I have a thirst for it (on the internet only of course, I'm not a psychopath)

[xUKHCx]

This thread amazes me.

To honestly call for someone to be denied medical care is an idea I find abhorrent for anyone. To do so on the grounds of a possible crime is no different.

If we take the view that “oh they are going to die anyway” then what about a person who has say 6 months to live and there is an expensive treatment that can extend that to 9 months. Well they are going to die anyway why not just bring it forward?

…



Firstly to say that you are not willing to change your stance does not make this a hostile place for you as you are immediately defense about every point and not open to discussion. I can’t honestly believe someone who calls themselves a student or at least one point in time can take this stance. Why bother going to school/university if you already know everything.


…But the point is..... even after knowing all this I believe that capital punishment is and IS inhumane because whatever a person might have done but we DO NOT have the right to claim his/her life! Nobody gives us that authority!

Total contradiction with your previous stance.

You'll notice that only one of the cases was overturned because of DNA (which was discovered after conviction), and that the other was overturned due to inadequate legal representation. Every other case (that was overturned) doesn't pertain to the US.

Surely these two cases alone are enough to warrant the whole system wrong. Would you like to be put to death for a crime you did not commit? I assume no so therefore why would you want to inflict that possibility on someone else.

As I said, DNA doesn't lie. .

A little too much faith in DNA evidence. The dna testing procedure is not a 100% science and to put absolute blind faith in it is wrong. There may also be problems of cross contamination etc. so a positive DNA result can still end up with a wrongful conviction and seeing as humans have to do the testing there is always scope for error.


My bad for saying the UK has the death penalty. I forgot your country is turning into a socialist haven.

Stop trying to troll the thread thanks.

[dukebound85]

That inconsistency is a result of a poor healthcare system, not a problem related to the humane treatment of prisoners.

that inconsisteny can very well factor to the humane tratment of prisioners. but my argument is should we INHUMANELY treat the prisoners (who may have committed a crime) or the law abiding citizens (just becasue they cant afford the care)

Well, now you see the benefit of universal healthcare. Innocent or incarcerated, in a modern, industrialized nation people should have basic health care taken care of, don't you think?

oh absolutely and sadly we do not have that here in the US. with that said, we have to deal with the present system and in this system, someone is always getting unfairly shafted. i am trying to figure out who is more "deserving" to get shafted if the choice has to be made as cruel as it is in my mind as someone is going to be

[blackfox]

You forgot socialist.

Don
What bollocks. Explain to me why it is not in the general societies' advantage to take basic health concerns off the average citizens' table. We pay taxes for roads, military, infrastructure and all manner of government expenditure. Doesn't health care rank up there with education?

I have no problem with the market doing what it does well. Healthcare is not among them. Universal healthcare is pragmatic and moral.

[Dmac77]

This thread amazes me.

To honestly call for someone to be denied medical care is an idea I find abhorrent for anyone. To do so on the grounds of a possible crime is no different.

If we take the view that “oh they are going to die anyway” then what about a person who has say 6 months to live and there is an expensive treatment that can extend that to 9 months. Well they are going to die anyway why not just bring it forward?



Firstly to say that you are not willing to change your stance does not make this a hostile place for you as you are immediately defense about every point and not open to discussion. I can’t honestly believe someone who calls themselves a student or at least one point in time can take this stance. Why bother going to school/university if you already know everything.




Total contradiction with your previous stance.



Surely these two cases alone are enough to warrant the whole system wrong. Would you like to be put to death for a crime you did not commit? I assume no so therefore why would you want to inflict that possibility on someone else.



A little too much faith in DNA evidence. The dna testing procedure is not a 100% science and to put absolute blind faith in it is wrong. There may also be problems of cross contamination etc. so a positive DNA result can still end up with a wrongful conviction and seeing as humans have to do the testing there is always scope for error.




Stop trying to troll the thread thanks.

No those cases aren't enough. Because DNA evidence wasn't proved wrong, new evidence was discovered. And DNA is a 99.99999% accurate science if I'm not mistaken (feel free to correct me if I am).

And I don't wish to troll, I was just stating the truth (IMHO), I honestly don't see how that is trolling, but I'll go with it at the risk of being banned.

Don

[dukebound85]

No those cases aren't enough. Because DNA evidence wasn't proved wrong, new evidence was discovered. And DNA is a 99.99999% accurate science if I'm not mistaken (feel free to correct me if I am).

And I don't wish to troll, I was just stating the truth (IMHO), I honestly don't see how that is trolling, but I'll go with it at the risk of being banned.

Don

sorry but i would give you just a tad bit more credit if

1) you backed up your claims with data

2) you were older than 14 (may not even be in high school or are just starting) no offense

[EricNau]

that inconsisteny can very well factor to the humane tratment of prisioners. but my argument is should we INHUMANELY treat the prisoners (who may have committed a crime) or the law abiding citizens (just becasue they cant afford the care)
Neither.

[dukebound85]

Neither.

ideally you are right but the fact is that they are everyday. how do you solve that with our present sytem which does not have universal health care?

as ive said, people get turned away from receiving the care they need everyday just because they dont have the insurance or whatnot. how do we solve this problem with our current system?

[EricNau]

ideally you are right but the fact is that they are everyday. how do you solve that with our present sytem which does not have universal health care?
By getting universal healthcare. ;)

[dukebound85]

By getting universal healthcare. ;)

haha i know! so aggravating why we dont have it

[r1ch4rd]

There's no fear of capital punishment in Europe and the soft of cases talked about above are very rare. They get a lot of publicity but it is still only 1 person out of millions who are doing that sort of thing.

[mactastic]

Agreed! It is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for some murderous scum! Why should they have a right to life saving medical care, when they ended someone else's life? They deserve to die just the way they killed/tortured their victim. Why should a murder/rapist be allowed to be treated like a human after they kill, rape, or do both to someone?

Don
So should we even feed them or give them water while they wait for execution?

[Scarlet Fever]

The fear of death has never worked. In old England, floggings and hangings were performed in public to deter others from committing the same crime; instead, they became a public spectacle. In the 1940s, Japanese pilots deliberately flew their aircrafts into enemy units. More recently, suicide bombers have killed thousands of people, and affected the lives of millions more. The death penalty is doing nothing to reduce crime in America.

well thats what we are stuck with and we have to deal with it

You don't! There are alternative systems which actually work!

Not picking on you, but I'm sick of people sitting back and letting things slide like this. Why doesn't anyone protest anymore? There is more than enough reason to. There is no reason why anyone should be rejected healthcare just because they can't afford it.

As much as I abhor the American health care and judicial system, everyone should be treated equally according to its current rules; if a prisoner can afford it, and wants it, they should be given the chance to have life-saving surgery. If they can't, they shouldn't be given it on the back of the taxpayers.

[iJohnHenry]

So should we even feed them or give them water while they wait for execution?

Sure, the same food and water the one sub-human gave that little girl, before he killed her.

And that's it. I think I have finally been granted the wisdom to stop dabbling in Capital Punishments threads.

Having achieved that, I can now enjoy, with some mirth, the ranting and raving that always occurs around such a subject.

Call me if we ever have a democratic vote on the matter.

[Lau]

He kidnaps a 5 year old sweet girl and enslaves her.... repeatedly raping her in some real cruel brutal torture.... He does that every day..... He gives her stinking food and dirty sewage water do drink and keeps her in total darkness... never to see light! After some months he kills her.... slowly and gradually!

Now you might say that he's mad but he isnt! These are known as cannibal emotions and every sane person on this Earth has them! The best and the strongest way through which we suppress these feelings is....... guess what..... fear of capital punishment!
You might not feel this now but the capital punishment is a very very strong factor controlling such feelings from your sub conscious!

Am I reading this right? Your saying saying the primary thing stopping you from raping and torturing a five year old is the fear and threat of capital punishment? :confused:

[Apple Ink]

I'd advise you to change courses to something like say Media studies. Your present course seems to be making you mentally ill.

Yeah you could say that!

Med school is probably making me crazy!

P.S.: To all those who think I'm contradicting myself.......
I apologize but I do have a split personality on this topic! One is powered by what I learn and read the other is accelerated by my personal beliefs!
And my apologies xUKHCx, I should've been clearer when I mentioned the forum's hostility! I meant that this is a really sensitive topic and with my split minds I probably should'nt nose in but I did and seemingly I messed up! My apologies!

To conclude: Capital is very very bad but probably necessary in developing countries! US/Canada and most of Europe is not included obviously!

And at Lau...... of what I know.... SUBCONSCIOUSLY..... its a major factor!
And before you blast at this seemingly 'stupid' fact... remember its subconsciously.... something that alot of us have never even heard about and most of us stop at just that!

[Lau]

And at Lau...... of what I know.... SUBCONSCIOUSLY..... its a major factor!
And before you blast at this seemingly 'stupid' fact... remember its subconsciously.... something that alot of us have never even heard about and most of us stop at just that!

Well, it may be for you, but for me the reason I don't rape and torture five year olds is because that's an entirely ****ed up thing to do. In fact, I would go as far to say that if there is a death penalty for not raping and torturing five year olds that I, and most other sane people, still wouldn't want to do it, and would rather be put to death than do that.

Similarly, most of us in countries that don't have the death penalty also seem to hold ourselves back on a daily basis from raping and torturing five year olds. I don't know how we manage it, but we do.

[skunk]

Capital [punishment] is very very bad but probably necessary in developing countries! US/Canada and most of Europe is not included obviously!If it's bad in one place, it's bad in every place. The evidence in favour of differentiating simply does not exist.

And at Lau...... of what I know.... SUBCONSCIOUSLY..... its a major factor!So are you claiming that the fear of capital punishment is the only thing preventing YOU PERSONALLY from exercising your natural propensity to rape, murder and cannibalise? Or are you saying that this deterrent applies to others? If the latter, do you have any evidence - any evidence at all - for this, or are you talking out of your arse?

[djellison]

Should have been executed right after his/her first appeal...

Tell that to those, and indeed the friends and family of those, found to be not-guilty at a later stage in the appeal process.

[Apple Ink]

If it's bad in one place, it's bad in every place. The evidence in favour of differentiating simply does not exist.

So are you claiming that the fear of capital punishment is the only thing preventing YOU PERSONALLY from exercising your natural propensity to rape, murder and cannibalise? Or are you saying that this deterrent applies to others? If the latter, do you have any evidence - any evidence at all - for this, or are you talking out of your arse?

Then I'd probably say that you havent been to some developing countries! I have! Just recently when I was in India, there was a news about some middle aged guy in a posh home who enticed all the poor children with chocolates and raped them (both boys and girls)... he then cut them into about 20 to 30 pieces and "cooked" the pieces and ate them.... what he couldnt eat he threw in a sewage line nearby!

And at your second comment..... it's a FACTOR..... among a ton of others (its a considerable factor though)! Proof: Just pickup any book arguing the thread's topic or pick up Advance Psychology......... you'll get a lot!

[skunk]

Then I'd probably say that you havent been to some developing countries! I have! Just recently when I was in India, there was a news about some middle aged guy in a posh home who enticed all the poor children with chocolates and raped them (both boys and girls)... he then cut them into about 20 to 30 pieces and "cooked" the pieces and ate them.... what he couldnt eat he threw in a sewage line nearby!I have spent most of my life in developing countries, but that makes little or no difference. No advantage is to be gained by society or the victims by killing even such a man as the one you mention, nor would it deter anyone. Do you really think he was factoring the possibility of capital punishment into his distorted thinking?

And at your second comment..... it's a FACTOR..... among a ton of others (its a considerable factor though)! Proof: Just pickup any book arguing the thread's topic or pick up Advance Psychology......... you'll get a lot!Thanks, but as the person arguing the case for what is on the surface a wholly inhumane and barbaric mode of punishment, it is up to you to produce some evidence in favour.

[Apple Ink]

I have spent most of my life in developing countries, but that makes little or no difference. No advantage is to be gained by society or the victims by killing even such a man as the one you mention, nor would it deter anyone. Do you really think he was factoring the possibility of capital punishment into his distorted thinking?

Thanks, but as the person arguing the case for what is on the surface a wholly inhumane and barbaric mode of punishment, it is up to you to produce some evidence in favour.

He probably wasnt and thats why he did it!

As from my previous post...... I'm really not favoring anything! (Not that I can though) So if you ask me to argue against Capital.... I can do that as well since I'll be putting in my emotions. Right now Im kind of neutral since Im emphasizing my knowledge!

Er.... I'll crack now!

[skunk]

Right now Im kind of neutral since Im emphasizing my knowledge!What "knowledge" is that?

[xUKHCx]

Y
To conclude: Capital is very very bad but probably necessary in developing countries! US/Canada and most of Europe is not included obviously!


Then I'd probably say that you havent been to some developing countries! I have! Just recently when I was in India, there was a news about some middle aged guy in a posh home who enticed all the poor children with chocolates and raped them (both boys and girls)... he then cut them into about 20 to 30 pieces and "cooked" the pieces and ate them.... what he couldnt eat he threw in a sewage line nearby!

Sorry but why does it matter between developing and develop countires? Afterall it is just an accident of birth that I was born in a "developed" country rather than a "developing" country. Random isolated examples like that can be taken from most countries around the world.

[Apple Ink]

What "knowledge" is that?

Some real nice 'course' discussions with my Psychology teacher!:)

P.S.: I really dont have anything hard against you or any other who criticizes me..... that the whole point of this forum! Thanks for all the criticism..... just makes a person mature! So in that sense.... THANKS

xUKHCx: some isolated examples are fine except that these examples are 'not so isolated' in certain poor countries! In general.... jails are ineffective in countries like Zaire where people loot freely and kill at will! The jails there dont even have walls sometimes!

[mactastic]

Right now Im kind of neutral since Im emphasizing my knowledge!
Care to share some sources of this "knowledge"? So far all I have seen is some pretty wild postulations about how all of us are one threat of capital punishment away from raping and killing small children.

So let's see where you're getting this "knoweldge" from...

[xUKHCx]

xUKHCx: some isolated examples are fine except that these examples are 'not so isolated' in certain poor countries! In general.... jails are ineffective in countries like Zaire where people loot freely and kill at will! The jails there dont even have walls sometimes!

So instead of creating proper jails/rehabilitation just kill them? It is the wrong solution to a problem.

[skunk]

In general.... jails are ineffective in countries like Zaire where people loot freely and kill at will! The jails there dont even have walls sometimes!Why do you suppose that the psychology of Zaireans is different from that of "civilised" people?

[Apple Ink]

So instead of creating proper jails/rehabilitation just kill them? It is the wrong solution to a problem.

The problem in these developing countries is not and I repeat NOT infrastructure but the mentality of the people! In my trip to India I was simply horrified to find that the rural Indians do not allow their daughters to study! Their daughters are married off at 12 years of age and need to hide their faces behind their garbs in front of men! They arent even allowed to talk to stranger!

I've already mentioned my 'source' above!

Thanks

Psychology en mass is heavily dependent on the habitat, environment where the people co exist! We have all seen are parents behave and talk so freely.... we've always seen a very protective environment and we know the consequences of crime! The Zaireans dont! (At least some of them)

[skyrider007]

No, because spaces in prison are running out and tax payers will not be happy.

[skunk]

The problem in these developing countries is not and I repeat NOT infrastructure but the mentality of the people! In my trip to India I was simply horrified to find that the rural Indians do not allow their daughters to study! Their daughters are married off at 12 years of age and need to hide their faces behind their garbs in front of men! They arent even allowed to talk to stranger!And how exactly does capital punishment have any effect on such behaviours?

[BoyBach]

I say we invade, er I mean 'liberally intervene' with, Zaire, India et al to teach these backwards some European civility. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

I say we invade, er I mean 'liberally intervene' with, Zaire, India et al to teach these backwards some European civility. :rolleyes:We already civilised them once. Sheesh, how many times does it take?

[xUKHCx]

The problem in these developing countries is not and I repeat NOT infrastructure but the mentality of the people! In my trip to India I was simply horrified to find that the rural Indians do not allow their daughters to study! Their daughters are married off at 12 years of age and need to hide their faces behind their garbs in front of men! They arent even allowed to talk to stranger!

I've already mentioned my 'source' above!

Thanks

Psychology en mass is heavily dependent on the habitat, environment where the people co exist! We have all seen are parents behave and talk so freely.... we've always seen a very protective environment and we know the consequences of crime! The Zaireans dont! (At least some of them)

Seems a little contradicitory. Firstly you say that some of their jails do not have walls and this means that they do not understand the consequences of their crime. However you go on to say that this is not an infrastructure problem :confused: I fail to see the logic there. If you build up the infrastructure so that their jails have walls (for example) this will feed through society that crimes have consequences.

And how exactly does capital punishment have any effect on such behaviours?

I agree. Their culture is different to ours, does that mean they have less right to live?

[BoyBach]

We already civilised them once. Sheesh, how many times does it take?


The ungrateful so 'n' so's... I guess we need to beat them with the big stick once more!

[.Andy]

Care to share some sources of this "knowledge"? So far all I have seen is some pretty wild postulations about how all of us are one threat of capital punishment away from raping and killing small children.

So let's see where you're getting this "knoweldge" from...
We're still to be provided a link about 'cannibal emotions' and the 'death penalty' being the greatest factor suppressing them as was claimed earlier. I've Googled and a searched the med/psych literature and I can't find a mention of any of it.

This 'knowledge' so far seems to be nothing more than appeals to authority. During my psychology and biology degree or discourse with my lecturer or at medical school. Not a single solid link to a paper or evidence of any sort.

[stubeeef]

The death penalty is crap. It doesn't hinder crime, it isn't parceled out fairly, it is not cost effective, it has killed numerous innocent people worldwide.
If I knew I was innocent I would want the surgery in hopes of my sentence being overturned before the injustice of ending my life.

[skunk]

The death penalty is crap. It doesn't hinder crime, it isn't parceled out fairly, it is not cost effective, it has killed numerous innocent people worldwide.
If I knew I was innocent I would want the surgery in hopes of my sentence being overturned before the injustice of ending my life.A fine response, well put.

[OscarTheGrouch]

When I'm right it is.

Oh and bye the way I support using prison inmates organs for the donor program (after they die of course).

Don
I support using them for drug testing.

[.Andy]

I support using them for drug testing.
It's a race to the bottom.

[Delta608]

Tell that to those, and indeed the friends and family of those, found to be not-guilty at a later stage in the appeal process.

OK, right after their nineteenth appeal and their medical degree and anything else they can do for crippled children...At least you did differentiate the difference between not guilty and innocent...But getting back to the ORIGINAL thread....Allow his life to end by natural causes...

[Delta608]

Tell that to those, and indeed the friends and family of those, found to be not-guilty at a later stage in the appeal process.

The death penalty is crap. It doesn't hinder crime, it isn't parceled out fairly, it is not cost effective, it has killed numerous innocent people worldwide.
If I knew I was innocent I would want the surgery in hopes of my sentence being overturned before the injustice of ending my life.


It is punishment for a heinous crime, it is not suppose to be cost effective or a deterrent to crime, it is punishment ....and in the cases that I have been privy to, well deserved.....I don't care how civilized Skunk is or anyone else claims they are or how their country views it.....Most critics abroad that bash my country and its representative Government have a very short term memory and until you have can vote in MY country I dont much care what you think......
So no medical attention to prolong the life of a lifer.....:p

[.Andy]

It is punishment for a heinous crime, it is not suppose to be cost effective or a deterrent to crime, it is punishment ....and in the cases that I have been privy to, well deserved.....
What is the use of the death penalty as a punishment then? It's not teaching the offender a lesson. Or is punishment as it applies to the death penalty just to salve your sense of vengeance? Does it make you feel better, safer, vindicated that people are executed? Is the death for you?

....and in the cases that I have been privy to, well deserved.....
So you're entitled to decide when someone should forfeit their life? When does someone deserve to die? What are the qualifying factors that would make you decide that they didn't deserve to die. Would they die by your hand?

I don't care how civilized Skunk is or anyone else claims they are or how their country views it.....Most critics abroad that bash my country and its representative Government have a very short term memory and until you have can vote in MY country I dont much care what you think......
Are you defending the death penalty or the US? Is the state sanctioned murder of defenseless humans an integral part of US identity to you?

So no medical attention to prolong the life of a lifer.....:p
This gives the impression that you are the one benefitting from the slow death of an inmate. That their pain and fear is something that you enjoy the thought of. It's shows a complete lack of empathy and a rather callous attitude towards your fellow man.

[dukebound85]

how about we stick all death row inmates on an island and have them fend for themselves

they decide to break society's rules to a large degree so as punishment, take away any benefit society can offer them meaning health care, civilazation anything

they are "free" but can no longer abuse society

how's that?

[.Andy]

how about we stick all death row inmates on an island and have them fend for themselves.
This is what prisons largely are.

they decide to break society's rules to a large degree so as punishment, take away any benefit society can offer them meaning health care, civilazation anything
Again this is what prisons are. They essentially have all their liberty stripped and not sense of civilisation.

Again I'm not sure what withholding medical care would achieve beyond salving a sense of vengeance for the sanctimonious. There still hasn't been a reasonable argument put forward as to why we should let any human being purposefully slowly and painfully die who is under our care.

they are "free" but can no longer abuse society
Why on earth do you want these people to be 'free' at all?

how's that?
To be honest not that great.

[dukebound85]

This is what prisons largely are.


Again this is what prisons are. They essentially have all their liberty stripped and not sense of civilisation.

Again I'm not sure what withholding medical care would achieve beyond salving a sense of vengeance for the sanctimonious. There still hasn't been a reasonable argument put forward as to why we should let any human being purposefully slowly and painfully die who is under our care.


Why on earth do you want these people to be 'free' at all?


To be honest not that great.

for one, i was being sarcastic........trying to get people to be like "oh like austrailia" lol


the arguement is as i have stated over and over is that when we have law abiding citizens being denied life saving health care, why should death row inmates be prefeered?

the only anser to this is if we adopt universal health care. until then, i believe that law abiding citizens should be provided health care over death row inmates if society is going to foot the bill

[dukebound85]

as i have brought up earlier....when the law abiding citizens can be denied life saving health care due to not having the means, why should those of death row automatically be granted it AT the taxpayer's expense

if our country did not deny life saving health care to anyone, i would have NO problem letting those on deathrow be treated. however, that is not the case and there has to be a point system in a sense. in my opinion, the interests of law abiding citizens outweigh those that are in prision

yes, there may be individuals be falsely accused and in prision but that is the system we are in unfortunately

well thats what we are stuck with and we have to deal with it

what argument can be made to favor death row inmates vs law abiding citizens when it comes down to who should get the life saving health care?

option 1) death row inmate is guilty and it would be more beneficial to society to save the innocent law abiding citizen

option 2) death row inmate may be innocent but not completely sure whereas the law abiding citizen is innocent at which point, they each have a valid claim but only the citizen is KNOWN to be innocnet

in either option, why should the inmate receive the life saving health care over the citizen? why should society deny him that care while giving it to the inmate?

a citizen without insurance or money WILL be turned away from a life saving opertion. what is this "in charge" you speak of? someone "in charge" made the call to turn the citizen away did they not? if you say the responsibility is that of society's, then should society help the person who can not afford the health care just as you are saying that since the prision (aka society enforcing its laws) in "in charge" of the prisioner that the prisioner should get the care?

That inconsistency is a result of a poor healthcare system, not a problem related to the humane treatment of prisoners.

Well, now you see the benefit of universal healthcare. Innocent or incarcerated, in a modern, industrialized nation people should have basic health care taken care of, don't you think?

that inconsisteny can very well factor to the humane tratment of prisioners. but my argument is should we INHUMANELY treat the prisoners (who may have committed a crime) or the law abiding citizens (just becasue they cant afford the care)



oh absolutely and sadly we do not have that here in the US. with that said, we have to deal with the present system and in this system, someone is always getting unfairly shafted. i am trying to figure out who is more "deserving" to get shafted if the choice has to be made as cruel as it is in my mind as someone is going to be

Neither.

ideally you are right but the fact is that they are everyday. how do you solve that with our present sytem which does not have universal health care?

as ive said, people get turned away from receiving the care they need everyday just because they dont have the insurance or whatnot. how do we solve this problem with our current system?

By getting universal healthcare. ;)

haha i know! so aggravating why we dont have it

kinda see where im going? the only answer is a universal health care system PERIOD. until then there has to be a point system when there are those that are denied the health care. why should prisioners be granted it over citizens is the root of my argumenet. people do get denied health care in the current system

[skunk]

kinda see where im going? the only answer is a universal health care system PERIOD. until then there has to be a point system when there are those that are denied the health care. why should prisioners be granted it over citizens is the root of my argumenet. people do get denied health care in the current systemWhile your lottery healthcare system is in place, I'm afraid the only correct conclusion is that prisoners should have it provided and those "outside" should take their chances. As jailer, the State has taken over 100% responsibility for the prisoner, and by denying the prisoner's choices, places itself in loco parentis. The much-vaunted "freedoms" afforded to the ordinary citizen by your current system include the freedoms to suffer and die through lack of medical intervention. Sort the system out and this hideous anomaly will disappear.

[blackfox]

While your lottery healthcare system is in place, I'm afraid the only correct conclusion is that prisoners should have it provided and those "outside" should take their chances. As jailer, the State has taken over 100% responsibility for the prisoner, and by denying the prisoner's choices, places itself in loco parentis. The much-vaunted "freedoms" afforded to the ordinary citizen by your current system include the freedoms to suffer and die through lack of medical intervention. Sort the system out and this hideous anomaly will disappear.

Concise and correct. While you may have an emotional response to this answer, remember where to direct it. Also remember that the reason we have a criminal justice system is to take emotion out of the equation...

[dukebound85]

While your lottery healthcare system is in place, I'm afraid the only correct conclusion is that prisoners should have it provided and those "outside" should take their chances. As jailer, the State has taken over 100% responsibility for the prisoner, and by denying the prisoner's choices, places itself in loco parentis. The much-vaunted "freedoms" afforded to the ordinary citizen by your current system include the freedoms to suffer and die through lack of medical intervention. Sort the system out and this hideous anomaly will disappear.

i still dont agree. whether we like it or not, we all are controlled by society and its rules. to have gone to prison as a result of breaking rules is just as much a part of society as abiding by them and not going to prison. just like the penalty box in hockey is just as much part of the game as the action on the ice.

those that do not commit crimes are more free because the rules of society let them. the same rules of society govern ALL in terms of privileges and consequences

by going to prison, the individual has given up the rights granted to him by society as he broke the laws set forth by said society. he no longer has a right to privacy, freedom, etc. why do you insist he has the right to health care?

why should the law abiding citizens be punished by not receiving health care just because they are law abiding? they are still under the control of the state when it ultimately comes down to it. you state that because of these privileges granted by society, they may be denied health care. why? yet prisoners are entitled to it because they no longer have those privileges?

why out of the two groups would you reward the wrongdoers over the responsible ones? why not better the productive members of society over those that destroy it? makes no sense

[skunk]

by going to prison, the individual has given up the rights granted to him by society as he broke the laws set forth by said society. he no longer has a right to privacy, freedom, etc. why do you insist he has the right to health care?Nonsense. He has not "given up his rights", he has had them taken away, and is instead being housed in a place not of his choosing, being fed with food not of his choosing, leading a daily routine not of his choosing. The state has in other words placed itself in charge of every aspect of his life. It has broken his liberty, now it owns him.

why should the law abiding citizens be punished by not receiving health care just because they are law abiding?Because they choose to live in a society which for some reason or other believes that "freedom" includes the freedom from universal healthcare. That expression of freedom has been taken from the prisoner along with every other. The prisoner is not a free agent.

[Delta608]

Nonsense. He has not "given up his rights", he has had them taken away, and is instead being housed in a place not of his choosing, being fed with food not of his choosing, leading a daily routine not of his choosing. The state has in other words placed itself in charge of every aspect of his life. It has broken his liberty, now it owns him.

Because they choose to live in a society which for some reason or other believes that "freedom" includes the freedom from universal healthcare. That expression of freedom has been taken from the prisoner along with every other. The prisoner is not a free agent.


Your trolling right..?? Please tell us your trolling...

[calculus]

Your trolling right..??

I'd say he's trolling not...

[skunk]

Your trolling right.....is not being exercised.

[djellison]

he no longer has a right to privacy, freedom, etc. why do you insist he has the right to health care?

Because I consider it a basic human right. The person has been sentenced to a prison sentence and then to be murdered. They have not be sentenced to clinical malpractice.

At what point would you draw a line? If you don't want to give them good health care - perhaps you would stop them having anti-biotics for a throat infection. Perhaps you would stop them having contact lenses or glasses if they need them (after all, they're going to be killed anyway). Perhaps you should take away their inhailers if they have asthma....a particularly bad asthma attack might save the state the bother of murdering them directly.

Seriously - withholding any medical care for prisoners is the start of a long, vile, barbaric slippery slope. A slope that no civilized population should be going down.

Don't get me wrong - people found guilty of the worst crimes in the world should spend the rest of their lives in prison and have their freedom to live within civilised community taken away. They should not have their health taken away- and - whilst it's for another thread and another day - they shouldn't be murdered by the state - directly via extermination, or indirectly via the witholding of medical care.

[Mindflux]

Nonsense. He has not "given up his rights", he has had them taken away, and is instead being housed in a place not of his choosing, being fed with food not of his choosing, leading a daily routine not of his choosing. The state has in other words placed itself in charge of every aspect of his life. It has broken his liberty, now it owns him.



No, he most certainly gave up his rights. The problem here is: He is now given 3 square meals a day, a roof over his head and in most cases no need to work.

Ask yourself how a convicted criminal getting all of those liberties at the tax payers expense while millions of people nation wide can't even afford to eat three times a day, or cannot afford a roof over their heads. Lastly, ask yourself why these same people in prison get free dental, healthcare and so on when people who are law abiding folk such as you or I may not have these? Everyone has rights, it just seems that convicted felons seem to be able to exercise some of them a bit more easily.

[skunk]

No, he most certainly gave up his rights.If he is locked up, his liberty has been taken, not given.

[Dagless]

Of course they bloody deserve surgery and/or long term treatment. Time to end all these show case revenge acts.

[remmy]

If the state did decide to end treatment for prisoners on death row or even those with life sentences to save money do you really think that this extra cash would be spent on the poor?

If a prisoner dies from lack of treatment and lack of care isn't that the same as ignoring prisoner abuse from guards, showing a lack of responsibility.

[Delta608]

If the state did decide to end treatment for prisoners on death row or even those with life sentences to save money do you really think that this extra cash would be spent on the poor?

If a prisoner dies from lack of treatment and lack of care isn't that the same as ignoring prisoner abuse from guards, showing a lack of responsibility.


The thread starter did not say LACK OF CARE, he said LIFE SAVING SURGERY...

Life saving surgery for a prisoner serving a life sentence is an oxymoron.

[Much Ado]

The thread starter did not say LACK OF CARE, he said LIFE SAVING SURGERY...

Life saving surgery for a prisoner serving a life sentence is an oxymoron.

As many have said, you could also stop giving food and water. Same difference. Is feeding a prisoner an oxymoron too?

[stevento]

Should the state pay for a surgery to save the life of a criminal that will never again be free?


Yes. The government should always pay for life saving surgery. I find it odd that a man in prison gets free healthcare when I'm free and I dont. I'm not saying the prisoner shouldn't get it, I'm saying everyone else should.

[skunk]

Yes. The government should always pay for life saving surgery.The government does not pay for anything.

[dukebound85]

If he is locked up, his liberty has been taken, not given.

taken away due to HIS choices that he made in society though. he gave them away by his actions

[dukebound85]

Of course they bloody deserve surgery and/or long term treatment. Time to end all these show case revenge acts.

has nothing to do with revenge in my mind. just why should prisoners be entitled to it while i could VERY easily be turned away

so by your logic skunk, if a citizen needs life saving sugery and he is not able to receive it, the individual is then compelled to commit a heinous crime to be now entitled to that surgery. what other option may he have?how can anyone reward this type of behavior?

[skunk]

just why should prisoners be entitled to it while i could VERY easily be turned awayYou are responsible for yourself. You have given the state responsibility for prisoners.

[dukebound85]

No, he most certainly gave up his rights. The problem here is: He is now given 3 square meals a day, a roof over his head and in most cases no need to work.

Ask yourself how a convicted criminal getting all of those liberties at the tax payers expense while millions of people nation wide can't even afford to eat three times a day, or cannot afford a roof over their heads. Lastly, ask yourself why these same people in prison get free dental, healthcare and so on when people who are law abiding folk such as you or I may not have these? Everyone has rights, it just seems that convicted felons seem to be able to exercise some of them a bit more easily.

well if im homeless, poor and need medical attention, what better way to take care of myself than to commit crimes on society!

[.Andy]

taken away due to HIS choices that he made in society though. he gave them away by his actions
So this is your justification? You'd be happy with prisoners under the exclusive care of your state, suffering in pain, afraid, slowly dying from renal failure, respiratory failure, heart failure, hepatitis, anaemia. All the time you'd just be rubbing your hands together callously and repeat the meme they did it to themselves. They chose this.

Irrespective of what they have done, YOU are fine with people dying through purposefully withheld medical treatment. You are fine with people suffering and afraid. Even though you'd do this at arms length, you're showing the same level of respect and empathy for others than the murderers themselves. Perhaps a level even more cowardly as you'd do it by proxy. You won't have to look in their eyes as someone writhes in pain and fear.

[skunk]

well if im homeless, poor and need medical attention, what better way to take care of myself than to commit crimes on society!If you don't like the way your system "works", you'll have to change it, won't you?

[dukebound85]

So this is your justification? You'd be happy with prisoners under the exclusive care of your state, suffering in pain, afraid, slowly dying from renal failure, respiratory failure, heart failure, hepatitis, anaemia. All the time you'd just be rubbing your hands together callously and repeat the meme they did it to themselves. They chose this.

Irrespective of what they have done, YOU are fine with people dying through purposefully withheld medical treatment. You are fine with people suffering and afraid. Even though you'd do this at arms length, you're showing the same level of respect and empathy for others than the murderers themselves. Perhaps a level even more cowardly as you'd do it by proxy. You won't have to look in their eyes as someone writhes in pain and fear.

NO, i i am not fine with people dying by withholding medical treatment. do you not read my posts? i am all for universal healthcare

we live in a system where there is NO universal healthcare. my argument is if you had to pick between saving the law abiding citizen or the prisoner, who would it be?

as i have said, law abiding citizens CAN be DENIED medical care. why should prisoners be ENTITLED to it? why should Joe down the street be dying because he is unable to receive the care he need soley because he has lived according to socity's rules whereas the prisoner receives the care because he broke those VERY rules


using your words, i feel this applies to you better than i.
" YOU are fine with innocent people dying through purposefully withheld medical treatment. You are fine with innocent people suffering and afraid[/B]. Even though you'd do this at arms length, you're showing the same level of respect and empathy for others than the murderers themselves. Perhaps a level even more cowardly as you'd do it by proxy. You won't have to look in their eyes as an innocent someone writhes in pain and fear."

notice the innocent ive added which states YOUR preference to the prisioners

[skunk]

using your words, i feel this applies to you better than i.
" YOU are fine with innocent people dying through purposefully withheld medical treatment. You are fine with innocent people suffering and afraid[/B]. Even though you'd do this at arms length, you're showing the same level of respect and empathy for others than the murderers themselves. Perhaps a level even more cowardly as you'd do it by proxy. You won't have to look in their eyes as an innocent someone writhes in pain and fear."

notice the innocent ive added which states YOUR preference to the prisionersIncorrect. Both .andy and I live in countries where this is not the choice.

[dukebound85]

If you don't like the way your system "works", you'll have to change it, won't you?

yea and if youve read my posts, ive stated universal healthcare is the only solution for medical treatment

skunk, you also realize that many cant afford health insurance due to them not having the education and job that will allow for it. lets just punish those people because they are free and let prisoners get all the care they need. who cares if Joe was born into a poor family that works 80hrs a week but is still poor since they are doing so at min wage trying to support a family and provide food on the table. these people clearly deserve not to be given health care.

not everyone is born equal and not everyone in society will be able to afford health care

[dukebound85]

Incorrect. Both .andy and I live in countries where this is not the choice.

thats all fine and dandy. i believe everyone should have equal access to health care as i have said numerous times

just that is not the situation we have in the us. if no one would be getting denied care i would be all for the giving of care to prisoners. however, when we have citizens dying due to lack of care, i feel that issue is of more importance. however, you and .Andy have been arguing for the prisoner which essentially dooms the citizen to die. that's just not right

your only argument is well the state has responsibility over the prisoners. that doesnt fly with me in the least as the citizens that need the care and that are getting denied it cant afford the insurance/care becasue they are born into a posistion where they are held down by that very society

[skunk]

your only argument is well the state has responsibility over the prisoners. that doesnt fly with me in the least as the citizens that need the care and that are getting denied it cant afford the insurance/care becasue they are born into a posistion where they are held down by that very societyYou will not improve the lot of uninsured free citizens by callously denying healthcare to those you have incarcerated.

[.Andy]

just that is not the situation we have in the us. if no one would be getting denied care i would be all for the giving of care to prisoners. however, when we have citizens dying due to lack of care, i feel that issue is of more importance. however, you and .Andy have been arguing for the prisoner which essentially dooms the citizen to die. that's just not right
Rubbish. If you were really for universal healthcare you'd be happy with prisoners getting treatment and use that as a platform to argue for citizens to be afforded the same care. Instead you want life-saving surgery to be taken away from prisoners - they've no way to pursue treatment for themselves at all. People should hot have to suffer and die from withheld medical treatment because of 'fairness'. It won't help citizens get treatment.

[dukebound85]

Rubbish. If you were really for universal healthcare you'd be happy with prisoners getting treatment and use that as a platform to argue for citizens to be afforded the same care. Instead you want life-saving surgery to be taken away from prisoners - they've no way to pursue treatment for themselves at all. People should hot have to suffer and die from withheld medical treatment because of 'fairness'. It won't help citizens get treatment.

what, because i disagree with you on who i believe is more deserving of the health care makes me not an advocate for it?

[dukebound85]

You will not improve the lot of uninsured free citizens by callously denying healthcare to those you have incarcerated.

how does it improve their lot if the prisoners get treatment again?

it would improve their lot if they, the citizens, received the care though if anything by providing another incentive to not act against society if they need the care

[skunk]

how does it improve their lot if the prisoners get treatment again?I did not claim that it would.

[.Andy]

what, because i disagree with you on who i believe is more deserving of the health care makes me not an advocate for it?
You'll have to explain how taking medical treatment away from people and leaving them to suffer in pain and die, will help you attain universal health care for anyone. So far you're arguing from the self-centered position of if I can't get it no body should be able to. Your motivation isn't to relieve suffering through improving access to healthcare. Yes prisoners are entitled to less liberty than everyone else. Does that justify their slow and painful death when under our exclusive care? No.

[dukebound85]

You'll have to explain how taking medical treatment away from people and leaving them to suffer in pain and die, will help you attain universal health care for anyone. So far you're arguing from the self-centered position of if I can't get it no body should be able to. Your motivation isn't to relieve suffering through improving access to healthcare. Yes prisoners are entitled to less liberty than everyone else. Does that justify their slow and painful death when under our exclusive care? No.

im not arguing from the self centered positon...

im arguing on what i believe is morally right. why reward those who break laws and why punish those who dont?

however, i know your position and i dont agree with it personally

[skunk]

im not arguing from the self centered positon...

im arguing on what i believe is morally right. why reward those who break laws and why punish those who dont?Look, the provision of healthcare to prisoners is the only bit you've got right. All you need to do is extend it to the rest of the population. Surely you can see that? Taking it away from those who already have it will solve nothing and is ethically insupportable.

[dukebound85]

Look, the provision of healthcare to prisoners is the only bit you've got right. All you need to do is extend it to the rest of the population. Surely you can see that? Taking it away from those who already have it will solve nothing and is ethically insupportable.

but if we do not have that universal health care in plan, who is to say that the current way of doing things is right?

under the current system, there are finite resources and how to distribute that is the crux of this argument. just because we are doing things a certain way NOW doesnt mean it's right.

your post implies that for the citizen to have health care (which he cant afford) that the ONLY way to give it to him is if there is a universal plan. well what if this universal plan wont be implemented for a while? do we just screw the citizens who need it? apparently you would support that

if there will be no universal care, i would support favoring the citizens over the prisoners EVEN if that means changing the current system and taking that care away from the prisoners and GIVING it to the citizens

[Delta608]

As many have said, you could also stop giving food and water. Same difference. Is feeding a prisoner an oxymoron too?

It is not the same difference...Trying to shovel your dose of morality doesn't work...You can try twisting anything you like to fit your argument to your point of view doesn't work either....Sorry you don't like capital punishment but it is the law of the land...and all your word twisting doesn't change it...Only a constitutional amendment will do that.
In the meantime the lifer who needs that surgery to stay alive will probably get it...But I don't have to like that either....But it sure was an excellent thread....

[Much Ado]

You can try twisting anything you like to fit your argument to your point of view doesn't work either...all your word twisting doesn't change it...

So you are out-argued, and you put your fingers in your ears and claim that anything can be argued with mere words?

Explain to me the difference between the provision of food and water, and the provision of healthcare. You say it isn't the same difference. Why?

I also don't give a monkey's what the 'law of the land' is. That has no bearing on my view on the matter at all.

[skunk]

if there will be no universal care, i would support favoring the citizens over the prisoners EVEN if that means changing the current system and taking that care away from the prisoners and GIVING it to the citizensQuestion 1: How many citizens are there in the USA?
Question 2: How many prisoners are there in the USA?
Question 3: Need I say more?

[Delta608]

Look, the provision of healthcare to prisoners is the only bit you've got right. All you need to do is extend it to the rest of the population. Surely you can see that? Taking it away from those who already have it will solve nothing and is ethically insupportable.

With your history of human rights abuses you certainly have no moral ground to stand on and nothing to teach us......We do not want anymore Gov't in our lives..We are entitled to a Gov't that protects us from foreign armies and Gov't's. NOT buy me aspirins, pay for my babysitter, and get earned income credit to taxes that have not been paid...But that is a whole nuther thread !! Here I thought you were just trolling, but you are a serious Marxist aren't you..?? Did you really contribute to our mean ol capitalistic society by purchasing an Apple computer..??

[skunk]

Here I thought you were just trolling, but you are a serious Marxist aren't you..??Yeah, right. Full Marx for observation. Like, seriously.

[.Andy]

im arguing on what i believe is morally right.
Which is leaving people under the exclusive care of the state to die slow, painful, and unnecessary deaths. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you 'morals'.

With your history of human rights abuses you certainly have no moral ground to stand on and nothing to teach us......We do not want anymore Gov't in our lives..We are entitled to a Gov't that protects us from foreign armies and Gov't's. NOT buy me aspirins, pay for my babysitter, and get earned income credit to taxes that have not been paid...But that is a whole nuther thread !! Here I thought you were just trolling, but you are a serious Marxist aren't you..?? Did you really contribute to our mean ol capitalistic society by purchasing an Apple computer..??
You can do better than this.

[dukebound85]

Which is leaving people under the exclusive care of the state to die slow, painful, and unnecessary deaths. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you 'morals'.

as opposed to having innoncent people that have done no wrong suffer and die? i dont think i agree with yours either....

[skunk]

as opposed to having innoncent people that have done no wrong suffer and die? i dont think i agree with yours either....Answer my questions, please.

[.Andy]

as opposed to having innoncent people that have done no wrong suffer and die? i dont think i agree with yours either....
I'm for health care for everyone which is largely how I vote. Of sheer dumb luck I happened to be born into a country that provides health care. No matter how many times you repeat the strawman, affording healthcare to prisoners does not mean that i want US citizens to suffer. Quite the opposite.

I am not suffering from the delusion that taking it away from one group who is wholly vulnerable and under the care of the state is the answer.

edit: perhaps you could answer skunks question for us?

[Delta608]

So you are out-argued, and you put your fingers in your ears and claim that anything can be argued with mere words?

Explain to me the difference between the provision of food and water, and the provision of healthcare. You say it isn't the same difference. Why?

I also don't give a monkey's what the 'law of the land' is. That has no bearing on my view on the matter at all.

Actually it has all the bearing on the matter...You have one point of view, I another...But my point of view is the law of the land your's has a bit a of curve in the road...You (i) cant out-argue an idea..We both stated our thoughts and now have strayed into hijacking the thread into universal health care...I dont believe in that either..My fingers are not in my ears, what else is there to argue about..?? I'm game, but its all been said..I wont change your mind, nor do I think you are wrong..We just have two different philosophies..and I on the other hand dont mind listening to an ideas that I dont believe in..

[Much Ado]

Delta608, if you are so keen on keeping the government out of your life, then why do you support its ability to end it?

EDIT: Another argument for another time?

[dukebound85]

Question 1: How many citizens are there in the USA?
Question 2: How many prisoners are there in the USA?
Question 3: Need I say more?

you didnt just imply that a prsioners life is worth more than a citizens did you, just because there are less of them?:rolleyes:

first you have to look at the number of citizens that cant afford health care. then you have to implement a point system (much like organ recepients) until we do have unversal health care

[Delta608]

Question 1: How many citizens are there in the USA?
Question 2: How many prisoners are there in the USA?
Question 3: Need I say more?


I think you need say a helluva lot more....How many subjects in your country...?? How many prisoners..?? What is YOUR population/prisoner ratio..??

[Delta608]

Which is leaving people under the exclusive care of the state to die slow, painful, and unnecessary deaths. I'm not entirely sure I agree with you 'morals'.


You can do better than this.


Your right but I tire of this....:D

[dukebound85]

I'm for health care for everyone which is largely how I vote. Of sheer dumb luck I happened to be born into a country that provides health care. No matter how many times you repeat the strawman, affording healthcare to prisoners does not mean that i want US citizens to suffer. Quite the opposite.

I am not suffering from the delusion that taking it away from one group who is wholly vulnerable and under the care of the state is the answer.

edit: perhaps you could answer skunks question for us?

the answer is universal health care. until then and the limited amt of resources we have, i have to side with those that live within socitiey's bounds

edit: as much as i enjoy debating with you guys, i have to get ready to go watch the cu/csu game!

[Much Ado]

you didnt just imply that a prsioners life is worth more than a citizens did you, just because there are less of them?:rolleyes:

I think he meant that providing healthcare to all citizens does not require you to take it away from prisoners, given that there are relatively few. If you can provide healthcare to your citizens, you can provide healthcare to the prisoners too.

[Delta608]

Delta608, if you are so keen on keeping the government out of your life, then why do you support its ability to end it?

EDIT: Another argument for another time?

hehe Touche~ !!

I support it because I swore an oath to do just that...:)

[.Andy]

the answer is universal health care. until then and the limited amt of resources we have, i have to side with those that live within socitiey's bounds
With the caveat that until this time you advocate that prisoners, under the complete and utter control of the state, are purposefully allowed to slowly die in unnecessary fear and pain.

[skunk]

you didnt just imply that a prsioners life is worth more than a citizens did you, just because there are less of them?:rolleyes:

first you have to look at the number of citizens that cant afford health care. then you have to implement a point system (much like organ recepients) until we do have unversal health careOK, I'll do it for you.
Answer 1: 301,000,000, of whom 47,000,000 uninsured (2007).
Answer 2: 2,300,000, of whom 3,263 on Death Row.
Answer 3: No, it is quite obvious that withholding medical care from 3,200 prisoners, or even 2,300,000 prisoners, will not significantly benefit anyone, let alone the 47,000,000 uninsured. Q.E.D.

[dukebound85]

OK, I'll do it for you.
Answer 1: 301,000,000, of whom 47,000,000 uninsured (2007).
Answer 2: 2,300,000, of whom 3,263 on Death Row.
Answer 3: No, it is quite obvious that withholding medical care from 3,200 prisoners, or even 2,300,000 prisoners, will not significantly benefit anyone, let alone the 47,000,000 uninsured. Q.E.D.

ok i had to come back to respond to this.

you are saying that a prisioner's well being outweighs that of a citizen and you justify it by numbers

you say that helping 3200 prisioners would not benefit the 47,000,000 uninsured

im willing to bet it would benefit 3200 of that 47mil if the treatment was instead given to them and would benefit them greatly.... its still 3200 people.

sorry, that is the worst justification i have ever seen

[skunk]

I think you need say a helluva lot more....How many subjects in your country...?? How many prisoners..?? What is YOUR population/prisoner ratio..??Nowadays, we are citizens. You have to keep up. There are 60,000,000 of us, and a prison population of around 80,000. The USA has the highest prison population rate in the world, at 686 per 100,000. The UK has a rate of 139 per 100,000. Anything else you need to know?

[skunk]

you are saying that a prisioner's well being outweighs that of a citizen and you justify it by numbersA prisoner is also a citizen.

[Delta608]

Nowadays, we are citizens. You have to keep up. There are 60,000,000 of us, and a prison population of around 80,000. The USA has the highest prison population rate in the world, at 686 per 100,000. The UK has a rate of 139 per 100,000. Anything else you need to know?


Glad you have moved up a notch....When did they say you could now be a citizen..?? :confused:

[Cave Man]

Only if the surgery fails and he dies on the table.

[Dagless]

Glad you have moved up a notch....When did they say you could now be a citizen..??

As if you didn't seem so "ass" backwards to begin with.

[skunk]

Glad you have moved up a notch....When did they say you could now be a citizen..?? :confused:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4191613.stm

Now that you have all the information you asked for (which you could have found for yourself before shooting your mouth off), perhaps you could give a more measured response than to accuse me of trolling, being a Marxist (though you seem to be entirely ignorant of what that means), abusing human rights (though you ignore your own country's abuses) and whatever nonsensical allegations you had in mind about relative prison populations. Do you have a point? Or are you too "tired" to participate in a proper debate?

[Delta608]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4191613.stm

Now that you have all the information you asked for (which you could have found for yourself before shooting your mouth off), perhaps you could give a more measured response than to accuse me of trolling, being a Marxist (though you seem to be entirely ignorant of what that means), abusing human rights (though you ignore your own country's abuses) and whatever nonsensical allegations you had in mind about relative prison populations. Do you have a point? Or are you too "tired" to participate in a proper debate?


This is some sort of debate...?? You have done nothing but bash my country and countryman ......All the debating in the world would not change your opinion, nor do I care to.. I do thank-you however for your brave soldiers and your country's support with the war on terrorism...
I still dont think that a prisoner on death row or a life prisoner should be kept alive by extraordinary means.. All the name calling aside..:D

[atszyman]

Before anyone slams me, I am a big advocate of Universal Healthcare, but I think the question of this thread is flawed from the start.

Wait a minute, isn't the ER bound by law to treat everyone who enters regardless of their ability to pay?

Heck, McCain's healthcare architect is claiming that there are no uninsured Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/mccain-health-care-emergency-room/).

Based on this I would say that even the poorest of the poor would not be denied a life saving surgery (provided it was not a vital transplant of an organ that might not be available) so why should convicts be denied the surgery?

Sure you can pull the organ transplant question, but once all the factors are weighed for determining priority I doubt a convict would rate higher than another citizen for the transplant.

[skunk]

This is some sort of debate...?? You have done nothing but bash my country and countryman .....On the contrary, all I have done is argue for the humane treatment of all people, which appears to be something you have an issue with.I do thank-you however for your brave soldiers and your country's support with the war on terrorism...If I had my way, we would not be involved in the illegal occupation of Iraq or the empowering of vicious Afghan warlords, so don't thank me.

[Delta608]

If I had my way, we would not be involved in the illegal occupation of Iraq or the empowering of vicious Afghan warlords, so don't thank me.

Who would of thought.....It was a thank-you to your countryman and your brave soldiers and those who support their efforts..:)

[dukebound85]

A prisoner is also a citizen.

when i say citizen i mean law abiding. my statement was in reference to your post with the statistics

[skunk]

when i say citizen i mean law abiding.Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

[solvs]

I'm guessing you don't watch "House". As he proved, if you save an inmates life, maybe they'll tell you something they wouldn't have been able to that they were saving until the end. Like that someone they bunked with did something really bad. I saw it on TV, so it must be true. Then again, maybe it was "Monk" and he died. I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention.

Seriously though, this is one of those "everyone deserves rights" thing, but I feel like a detailed response would be fairly pointless at this... point.

[dukebound85]

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

im going by society's definition of law abiding, not my own judgement....

[hulugu]

I'm amazed this thread has continued for 7 pages.

First, the argument centers on a—I'm assuming—hypothetical case. But, the Universal Health Care is a red herring to the central argument. The most important aspect is that the patient is a death row prisoner. And, in that, I think 'Rat's early post is the most cognizant.

In order that we maintain a government of law and maintain due process, IMO skunk has it correct as to health care. That we disagree about the death penalty itself is irrelevant to the issue.

'Rat

The system of due process should guarantee that the prisoner is given adequate health care (not to mention food, water, etc.) up until the point he finishes the appeals process and then he is either executed or given a stay by court order or the governor. Anything else would be detrimental to the prisoner's Constitutional rights.

Furthermore, prisoners remains citizens of the United States, they are however disenfranchised from some rights.

[Dagless]

when i say citizen i mean law abiding. my statement was in reference to your post with the statistics

So if you speed, if you have pirated music or software, done something reckless when drunk... You're no longer a (law abiding) citizen?

[davidjearly]

Yes, they should be given healthcare until their execution date.

So if you speed, if you have pirated music or software, done something reckless when drunk... You're no longer a (law abiding) citizen?

Clearly not, as you would have broken the law. Law-breaking ≠ Law-abiding.

[Apple Ink]

Yes, they should be given healthcare until their execution date.


May I ask what all do you include in your inventory of healthcare

If the person needs to undergo a major surgery which has a recovery period far greater than the scheduled execution time.........
Or if the person develops a chronic pain and must undergo surgery when his/her execution is to occur just next week........

These things are obviously easier said in 10 words than done.

[atszyman]

May I ask what all do you include in your inventory of healthcare

If the person needs to undergo a major surgery which has a recovery period far greater than the scheduled execution time.........
Or if the person develops a chronic pain and must undergo surgery when his/her execution is to occur just next week........

These things are obviously easier said in 10 words than done.

In both those cases the care should be administered just as if they were not going to be executed. If the governor decides to stay the execution or new evidence appears that could prove them innocent. Withholding medical care simply because they're scheduled execution date is in the near future, especially for a painful condition, is nothing more than torture.

If a person is told that they have only 3-6 months to live can we stop giving them medical treatment after 5 months since we could be preserving those medical resources for someone who will be around longer?

[davidjearly]

What atszyman said.

[Apple Ink]

In both those cases the care should be administered just as if they were not going to be executed. If the governor decides to stay the execution or new evidence appears that could prove them innocent. Withholding medical care simply because they're scheduled execution date is in the near future, especially for a painful condition, is nothing more than torture.

If a person is told that they have only 3-6 months to live can we stop giving them medical treatment after 5 months since we could be preserving those medical resources for someone who will be around longer?

I never gave an opinion on whether or not medical treatment should be given. I just rectified Mr Jearly that this is a big topic and cannot so easily be summarized in one simple line which was obviously incomplete!

[atszyman]

I never gave an opinion on whether or not medical treatment should be given. I just rectified Mr Jearly that this is a big topic and cannot so easily be summarized in one simple line which was obviously incomplete!

And my answer was that his statement was complete. Since stays of execution can occur up until the injection, and we cannot predict the future, withholding medical care because someone is likely to die on a particular date is not an option.

[Apple Ink]

And my answer was that his statement was complete. Since stays of execution can occur up until the injection, and we cannot predict the future, withholding medical care because someone is likely to die on a particular date is not an option.

It took you 3 line to write the statement as precisely as you could and yet you say the ans was complete?;)

[atszyman]

It took you 3 line to write the statement as precisely as you could and yet you say the ans was complete?;)

Yes, they should be given healthcare until their execution date.

How is that not complete? You put forth scenarios that you thought would elicit a different response, I argued that without knowing the future we cannot guarantee the inmates date of death, therefore they should be given heath care all the way up to the point of their death.

The length of my argument extends from your questions and has nothing to do with the completeness of the prior statement you were trying to challenge.

[imac/cheese]

Death Row is an appalling enough institution without those held on it being left to die of curable illness while they wait to know whether they will be pardoned, exonerated or killed. Everybody should have access to proper healthcare, and nobody should be executed by the state.

I think skunk said it correctly on page one.

[mactastic]

Clearly not, as you would have broken the law. Law-breaking ≠ Law-abiding.
Our esteemed Attorney General would beg to disagree (http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/082608/let_470831.shtml) with you:
"Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."
Now, when you put it that way...