Texas bans last meal

Scroll to see replies

Do us all a favour and shut up.

what a rude young man you are! but no surprise there. a lot of people who love criminals seem to not be very respectful. yes, they love a psychopath who has killed a few people, probably find him glamorous, but normal folk who do no harm, well for them there's only contempt.

Reply 61

silphium

I spent three years at the ultra-liberal University of Texas at Austin. The capital city Austin, where we lived, was one of the most progressive cities anywhere. Step out of Austin, though, and Texas politics was Christian corporatist, a bizarre conflation of biblical literalism and laissez-faire capitalism, as if Jesus primary concern was for business tax rates and deregulation.

Bottom line, if you get a chance to study in Austin (or nearby San Antonio), you'll love it. Warm weather, dozens of cold spring-fed pools and lakes throughout the area, great music and interior Mexican food. The rest of Texas, though, while beautiful in parts, is not a place for civilized human beings. That their government would jab a stick at a man destined to pay for a crime with is life, astounds me not at all.

Reply 62

Bonged.

Original post by Kaykiie

That's your prerogative...

If there was a referendum on this subject you'd find it was the majority of the british public's prerogative.

Reply 63

Zhy

Because of the global economic crisis, we can no longer afford to give them food. It's a waste, anyway.

Reply 64

Toaster Leavings

The last meal is for the benefit of the executioners not the criminal. If the criminal accepts the meal it is symbolic showing acceptance of guilt and the death and a level of forgiveness towards his soon-to-be killers.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 65

34253

Original post by Toaster Leavings

The last meal is for the benefit of the executioners not the criminal. If the criminal accepts the meal it is symbolic showing acceptance of guilt and the death and a level of forgiveness.

Indeed. Quite a lot of institutions serve it a few days early because of the shocking discovery that a lot of people who are about to die aren't hungry.

Reply 66

TheHistoryStudent

Just to clarify unless someone else already has, they're not sending them to their deaths on an empty stomach, they're sending them to their deaths on the same food as everyone else.

Personally, I couldn't care less, at the end of the day, the people are going to be killed anyway, it makes absoloutely no difference if they eat prison food or a banquet, the end result is the same.

Reply 67

Zhy

Sounds like the guy on death row decided that he wanted to troll a bit before he died.

Reply 68

Mr Dangermouse

Original post by Bonged.

If there was a referendum on this subject you'd find it was the majority of the british public's prerogative.

Thankfully the powers that be have decided that a referendum on death is far from appropriate.

Reply 69

Steevee

Original post by Mr Dangermouse

No such thing as a crime worthy of such punishment in my book. It's totally uncivilised.

Whe you show that you refuse to live within society and by socities' rules, you lose the right to be treated as a member of society. In my book.

Reply 70

Sammydemon

Original post by Teknik

I wonder how you will view the death penalty if you have a daughter, mother, sister, girlfriend raped and murdered by someone.

Why would it matter how he or I for that matter felt? It's up to the justice system to determine how criminals are dealt with, not people related to the victim; they haven't actually had a crime commited against them afterall.

Reply 71

Sammydemon

Original post by Steevee

Whe you show that you refuse to live within society and by socities' rules, you lose the right to be treated as a member of society. In my book.

So then how does society progress if nobody is allowed to stand up against something and start a new way?

Reply 72

Maccees

After reading through this thread, I get the feeling that most people sympathise with murderers or something?
Personally I think that if there is flawless, 100% undoubted evidence that the accused did murder someone in cold blood or whatever, then to be quite frank they don't deserve any kind of human rights and should be executed.

Why should my taxes pay for Ian Huntley to live reasonably comfortably in a state prison, for example? What he did was especially sick and disgusting, at the very least he should have been left to kill himself like he tried to.

Reply 73

Steevee

Original post by Sammydemon

So then how does society progress if nobody is allowed to stand up against something and start a new way?

There's rather a difference between standing up for a new direction, and directly violating the most serious laws of society. Want to propose a new political system? That's ok. A new social protocol or norm? That's ok. Want to murder, rape or torture? That's not ok.

Reply 74

angryvivo

this to whomever brought in obama to the argument :redface:

bama is categorized as black due to the one drop rule in America which derived from slavery

Reply 75

Mr Dangermouse

Original post by Steevee

Whe you show that you refuse to live within society and by socities' rules, you lose the right to be treated as a member of society. In my book.

So you think the state has a Devine right to take lives?

Reply 76

Craig_D

Original post by Maccees

Personally, I just don't think the kind of proof exists that can prove guilt beyond any doubt. You could have police officers burst into a murder scene and find a guy holding a bloody knife, and CCTV of him committing the crime, but you still couldn't prove that he wasn't framed by the police themselves using video editing, etc. I know that it's 1,000 times more likely that the evidence is real and the person genuinely did do it, but that tiny margin of doubt is too big for the state to take their life away. It takes only one mistake to be made for the state to have committed the most horrendous and unforgivable act, and due to the fact that even in the UK errors are now known to have been made before capital punishment was abolished, I don't think that any state has the proof, or should have the power, to take a life.

Reply 77

Steevee

Original post by Mr Dangermouse

So you think the state has a Devine right to take lives?

I think the State has the right ot remove the life of one who has committed crimes against humanity and society. I think if the criminal is found guilty by a jury of peers of such a crime, then there is no moral issue with removing that person from society on a permenant basis.