|
Post by barry on Apr 30, 2005 6:41:11 GMT -5
Here is a suggestion
I am imagining if the Food sucks in the Death House in texas, then it would pretty much suck in general across the Texas Department in corrections . They probably don't pick on Death Row inmates in General on this issue.
What i am suggesting is that, amongst those people, who are concerned about inmates welfare, surely there are some with skills that include, being able to cater to a large amount of people a decent amount of food on a appropriate budget. Perhaps if you can locate people with this skill, they can volunteer their services to the great state of texas for free
|
|
jj
New Arrival
Posts: 5
|
Post by jj on Apr 30, 2005 11:16:18 GMT -5
Here is a suggestion I am imagining if the Food sucks in the Death House in texas, then it would pretty much suck in general across the Texas Department in corrections . They probably don't pick on Death Row inmates in General on this issue. What i am suggesting is that, amongst those people, who are concerned about inmates welfare, surely there are some with skills that include, being able to cater to a large amount of people a decent amount of food on a appropriate budget. Perhaps if you can locate people with this skill, they can volunteer their services to the great state of texas for free You are not the first to think this. However, Texas won't do it. They have their rules and their rules is to make things as bad as they will be allowed to do.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 3, 2005 18:33:35 GMT -5
Because they were sentenced to die. Not to be abused, malnurtritioned and degradaded. They were sentenced to death. I'd like for you to tell me why death isn't enough for you.
What makes you think prisons anywhere are comfortable places? I hate to be discussing this particular money-issue, but countries without death penalty actually save money, as death penalty is about 4 times a costly as for example LOWP. Those of us living in countries outside of the U.S. aren't paying for the death penalty - because we do not want death penalty. Not necessarily becaues it's way too costly, but simply because most others do not agree that a state / country has the right to kill.
That is your opinion, and you have as much right to have yours as I have to keep mine. Just keep in mind that the U.S. is not in sync with the rest of the western world on the issue, so don't keep on moralizing .
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please specify? I really do not understand what you mean with saying "there is no such thing as "rehabilitation", when it happens all the time. I might have misunderstood you though. If so, I am sorry. It would be great if you would please explain.
Slow down. This is habitual thinking. I am most assuredly keeping in mind that I feel sorry for people who has been convicted of multiple felonies, but that does not mean that they are not worthy of my compassion. And - from there to say they should be given the ultimate punishment is a long shot and you're jumping to conclusions very easily. What happens every time the state takes a life, is that "LIFE" is being dimished bit by bit. The state does not show much regard for life at all, so how can you expect the people living there will show much more regard for human lives than the state that they live in?
The only thing the death penalty demonstrates, is how little a human life is worth.
--Turid
|
|
|
Post by barry on May 4, 2005 0:44:42 GMT -5
Isn't there at least some politicians that don't have the Hang'em High Attitude. That would appreciate a plan to involve catering for the inmates properly at a decent prie
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 5:18:54 GMT -5
Sadly, you're right, Joy. I'm sure that if we were able to come up with somebody who could do that, money wouldn't be an issue as I feel confident there are many who would want to donate their own pocket money to ensure the prisoners were given healthy food.
It is my impression - without a doubt - that the food is part of the punishment. Evidenced by the food-loaf thing that is actually used as punishment daily, and also the mystery food or whatever they call it.
It's all about punishment. When TDCJ has decided they will use food (or the lack of such) as punishment, there is nothing we can do with that. Of course, there is no reason why you shouldn't try and see what comes out of it. However, I do not believe that you will succeed. That is not always a very good reason for not trying!
Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 7:24:46 GMT -5
Turid, if what you say about "rehabilitation happens all the time" is true, then why is the recidivism rate so high? By the way, there is a BIG difference between malnutrition and eating cold food. People survive in prison (including death row) for years eating the food they serve. They are there to be punished--not to eat steak. I know that is not what you are arguing; however, you see my point. These people are eating! I feel absolutely no sympathy for those in prison that have to eat cold slop. Yes, they are human--but they did things in society that separated them from the majority.
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 7:54:09 GMT -5
First off: It is most defenitely true that there are some people that cannot be rehabilitated. Secondly: I didn't say that it happens to everyone. That is true.
On the other hand: What is actually being done in order to rehabilitate people? I have seen some successful programs that's being tried out in Texas, which is a type of prison for juveniles, but not for adults who have been serving long sentences.
The difference from ordinary prison, is the idea is to teach the offenders to deal with anger, they are given psychiatric help - and I know you might think that psychiatric help is nothing but patting an offender on the back, saying: "Please do not do that again....".
That is NOT the matter of the facts!. From what I saw, those who were confined to this type of rehabilitation (unfortunately only juveniles) went through hell with the psychiatric assistance and also the anger mangment program available. The young offenders had the choice of either going to ordinary prison - which would mean that they would more likely than not come back to prison sooner or later. Or - they could go through this type of rehabilitation program.
They were successful in more than 90% of the cases.
It's a known fact that prisons are rarely improving anyone to better themselves. However, that happens too. In most cases, prisons harden people to become even more violent. All the violence and disrespect they are being subjected to, creates a rage that is downright dangerous to society once the person is out.
Rehabilitation programs are available. It's possible, but it does not seem like there is any political support for the rehabilitation of offenders, so I guess its easier, (however more expensive) to sentence a person to die, or simply to LOWP.
Of course there is. As you say: That wasn't my point either. I wish we were only talking about "cold food". I've been living on cold food for a long time, and I'm surviving and I'm happy with it. What happens though - on death row - is that the prisoners are not being given healthy food. I'm visiting people on death row from time to time, and if I'm lucky, I get to the visitor room when the food vendors arrive, so if I'm quick, I can get some fruit and healthy food for the one I visit. Cold food is not necessarily unhealthy. As I said, I eat cold food for the most part, (although I have the chance to choose as opposed to them). Again: That was not my point, and I am sorry that I did not express myself clearly enough.
Yes. They "survive", but from there to say they are give decent food, is to be reaching. They are sentenced to death. Yes. But why can't they be given at least healthy food. I'm not talking about lobster and white wine here. I'm talking about HEALTHY food. Not the type of food that only makes sure they will develop health problems while on death row. That's not what they've been sentenced to. What's wrong with ordinary, decent food?
I don't feel I need to answer to this, as I never suggested that either.
Sometimes they're eating, other times not. I've been involved with issues with a prison in some state which has had so many problems with bacteria in the food that makes most of them throw up, get diarrea and other acute health problems. They've been sentenced to die - why not feed them normal everyday food rather than to use food as a punishment? I asked you something you didn't answer to: "Why isn't a death sentence enough for you"? I'd like to answer me that.
I wish you had responded to my question: "Why isn't a death sentence enough for you?". Because you should remember one thing here: When food is served cold, and there is no hygiene, bacteria is flourishing and people will get sick. I know you probably think that is OK too, but then again: They have already been sentenced to death. Why this need to take away more???
Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 8:09:39 GMT -5
I tried to answer everything but I forgot some of the things you mentioned. The death penalty is enough. But, I am not very concerned about what the inmates are eating--and I most certainly will not lobby for the cause. Now, I know this is cliched, however, most of the people on death row are there because of acts they commited in society (I deliberately said "most" to rationalize the possibility of innocence). If the condemmed knew before they committed the crime that they would be caught and put to death, I can assure you, almost all would not have committed the offense. They did it because they thought they would not get caught. They did not have compassion for anyone but themselves (remember the inmates family are also victims), so why should we have compassion for them now?
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 9:00:25 GMT -5
Well - I can hardly be said to be lobbying for this cause either. Simply because I feel there are more important issues to address and to be lobbying for. (Than the food issue in particular). However, I do respond whenever the issue is brought up.
Did you ever think about how many murders that were committed in the spur of the moment and / or in panic? I am well enough aware of the fact that in order to get the death penalty, the murder will have to be premeditated. However, that is not always so in real life. There is a huge amount of people in there who are sentenced to death for crimes such as murder in connection with a robbery, etc. In many such cases, a murder was committed in panic, and a person acting while in panic, does not consider the consequenses of his / her actions. They act, however on instinct. You will probably say that I'm talking about a very marginal amount of prisoners, but I am in fact not.
Just to add one of my own experiences: The first death row inmate I met, wasn't aware of the fact that there was a death penalty in Texas at all before he actually was a murderer himself! Simply because his parents and the society as a whole didn't succeed in educating this guy enough to be able to read or write, which in reality means that there are a lot of laws out there that this person can't possible know anything about because of lack of education. That also goes for many others who don't learn to read and write before they get to the row).
Others might have been so drugged down, insane or both that they did not really make any choice or considered anything at all. It's also a known fact that prisons are being used even for those who are totally insane. I know one of them. What about them? Did they make intelligent choices too?
I am NOT implicating that you need a lot of education to know instinctively that murder is wrong. Anyone - regardless of education knows that murder is ALWAYS wrong. No one needs telling you that. That is one thing, but if they didn't even know there was a death penalty to begin with, how could they have made the choice you are referring to?
What you're implicating here, is that those who committed a murder knew what he / she was doing well in advance, he / she knew about the risk of ending up on death row if they did, but after some consideration, they decided to ignore that risk and to go on with it.
That happens, but please let me guess: That type of thing does not happen that often although the death penalty is actually reserved for that type of crime. That is not how it works in real life though.
I guess you're partly right. Many probably committed murder because they didn't think they were caught. And it is also true that some does not have any compassion for anyone but themselves. You write here that: "They did not have compassion for anyone but themselves (remember the inmates families are also victims), so why should we have compassion for them now?
When you say "them" are you referring to the inmate's family?
If so: You should have compassion for their families because they are suffering regardless of how flawed and / or sinister the mind of a loved one on death row is. A son is a son. A brother is a brother, and you love them regardless. These families didn't have a saying anymore than what the victim's family had.
What's the real difference?
Love, Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 9:56:11 GMT -5
After I posted I realized I should have clarified that when I said "them" I am referring to the inmate. I do have sympathy for the inmate's family as I believe they are victims, too.
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 10:02:52 GMT -5
If a person commits murder after the rob somone, I believe they should be put to death! They may have murdered in a "panic", however they went out with a gun with the intention of robbing. If they did not intend to shoot someone, an unloaded gun is just as effective as a loaded one.
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 10:13:00 GMT -5
"Just to add one of my own experiences: The first death row inmate I met, wasn't aware of the fact that there was a death penalty in Texas at all before he actually was a murderer himself! Simply because his parents and the society as a whole didn't succeed in educating this guy enough to be able to read or write, which in reality means that there are a lot of laws out there that this person can't possible know anything about because of lack of education. That also goes for many others who don't learn to read and write before they get to the row)."
It is everyone's fault but his own, right? I agree that we have to do something about adults not being able to read or write. But, even though he was unable to read, I am quite certain he knew that MURDER was a crime. It is innate. People need to stop finding excuses and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Even if they were high on PCP when they murdered someone, that is still no excuse. They made a conscious decision to put the drug in their bodies. Should we let them go if they "promise" to never use the drug again?
|
|
Turid
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by Turid on May 4, 2005 10:39:39 GMT -5
Now you jumped onto another subject. But OK: I don't agree with you. I don't think that anyone should be executed at all regardless of what he did.
HOWEVER: That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about whether or not a panic stricken person was very likely to have considered the concequences of his actions. That is still what I'm talking about.
If they went out with a gun planning to commit robbery, they're breaking the law and should serve prison time, but death penalty isn't a opportunity unless somebody is actually killed.
You are of course right in saying that if the intent wasn't to use the gun, they might as well have brought an unloaded one. I do not believe that a gun is necessarily brought with the conscious intent to kill anyone though, but more likely for own protection. When surprised, many panic and everything goes wrong from there.
AGAIN: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY, BUT I'M DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT THEY MADE THE ACTUAL CHOICE. And that is why I would like to know if you really think an action that came from panic can be considered as premeditation. I know it happens. I also know that this might be considered premediation by the courts and the law.
I don't agree that it IS premedition though.
--Turid
|
|
|
Post by truth12 on May 4, 2005 10:52:46 GMT -5
If the person that went out to commit robbery brought a loaded gun with them, then yes, I believe it was premeditated. If they only wanted to rob the individual, they could have left the bullets out of the gun. By bringing it loaded, they knew that there was the possibility that they would have to shoot someone.
|
|
|
Post by CCADP on May 4, 2005 10:55:17 GMT -5
I don't believe in guns; I think there is never a reason to carry one around; but; ummm, in a place like Texas or Florida; if you are going to have a gun, you better hope its loaded! Everyone else has one...
Gee. ya think that might have something to do with all the spur of the moment crimes that happen there ?
|
|