Current Events > Why do death row inmates get a last meal?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why do they get to choose their free meal for the last time before they are set to die?

I'm sure the victims they murdered were not offered a free last meal - so why should the criminal?
---

Because cruelty is (nominally) not the point.

---

Im sure their victims werent given a trial or read their rights either.

But here we are.

---

Flauros posted...

Im sure their victims werent given a trial or read their rights either.

But here we are.

Well there's nothing we can do about that

But there is something that can be done about getting a last meal. And that would be, not giving a last meal
---

Some states have definitely done away with those special requests for last meals - the death row inmates just get regular prison fare now.

---

The same reason we do anything: it's tradition

---

AldousIsDead posted...

Because cruelty is (nominally) not the point.

Could be wrong, but I thought the point of capital punishment was revenge. They committed a heinous crime, they should be punished for it. Is that not what it's about?
---

(nominally)

---

Their last meal should always be some knuckle sandwiches

AldousIsDead posted...

(nominally)

Could be wrong, but I figured the point of capital punishment was revenge.
---

Yea... capital punishment is a favor.

As apposed to being locked up forever.

---

AldousIsDead posted...

Because cruelty is (nominally) not the point.

This and it is an ancient custom.

---

When you're a prisoner, you're just a pet of the state.

We do the same for our dogs.

---

masticatingman posted...

Some states have definitely done away with those special requests for last meals - the death row inmates just get regular prison fare now.

Even the states that do special requests usually have like a $25 limit, so it's usually just a bunch of fast food.

---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Could be wrong, but I thought the point of capital punishment was revenge. They committed a heinous crime, they should be punished for it. Is that not what it's about?

You are wrong. The point is deletion, and deterrent for the living would-be criminals in fear of deletion. Punishment is useless if the person doesn't live to correct their ways.

---

AldousIsDead posted...

Because cruelty is (nominally) not the point.

And sadly, for some it is
---

My least meal would be some ass

---

Laserion posted...

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Could be wrong, but I thought the point of capital punishment was revenge. They committed a heinous crime, they should be punished for it. Is that not what it's about?

You are wrong. The point is deletion, and deterrent for the living would-be criminals in fear of deletion. Punishment is useless if the person doesn't live to correct their ways.

Punishment isnt useless because the victims will feel satisfaction for the criminal dying. They get justice for the criminals actions.
---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Could be wrong, but I thought the point of capital punishment was revenge.

Correct.

We should get rid of last meals because we should get rid of capital punishment. Let's actually operate like a developed country and not a theocracy or dictatorship.

---

Compsognathus posted...

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Could be wrong, but I thought the point of capital punishment was revenge.

Correct.

We should get rid of last meals because we should get rid of capital punishment. Let's actually operate like a developed country and not a theocracy or dictatorship.

Why do you think they should get rid of capital punishment?
---

lol

---

monke not undarstand

---

I heard a lot of states are getting rid of special request last meals.

Because 1/5 people put to death are innocent

Die hungry murderers

---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Why do you think they should get rid of capital punishment?

Because the point of the penal system shoupd never be cruelty or revenge. Priority one is to help keep people safe from dangerous criminals. Priority two is to provide an environment where people in the prison system can be reformed and made more productive so that those who leave will have a better chance to succeed and not relapse to old criminal behaviors.

Because for criminals that cannot be reformed and rehabilitated life in prison meets priority one just as well as capital punishment, at a lower cost, and in the event of wrongful conviction provides the opportunity for some restitution. The ONLY thing that capital punishment does is feed vengeance-filled bloodlust and that has no benefit to society and no place in the Justice system.

If even a single wrongfully convicted individual is murdered while an equally-effective, more affordable alternative that would have avoided it is in place then the capital punishment system is morally inexcusable.

But I'll compromise. I would say we can keep capital punishment so long as the person who sentenced the individual is brought up on murder charges should that person be found to be wrongfully convicted. After all, the sentencer effectively killed an innocent person. Shouldn't be a problem if they are committed to their sentence and the ruling, right? Just adding some personal responsibility to the mix.

---

Compsognathus posted...

But I'll compromise. I would say we can keep capital punishment so long as the person who sentenced the individual is brought up on murder charges should that person be found to be wrongfully convicted.

We should extend a similar principle to parole board members: if they release a murderer and he goes on to kill again, they go to prison. Maybe when it's their own lives on the line, they'll be a lot more careful about who they send back into society. Personal fucking responsibility.

---

Compsognathus posted...

Because the point of the penal system shoupd never be cruelty or revenge. Priority one is to help keep people safe from dangerous criminals. Priority two is to provide an environment where people in the prison system can be reformed and made more productive so that those who leave will have a better chance to succeed and not relapse to old criminal behaviors.

Because for criminals that cannot be reformed and rehabilitated life in prison meets priority one just as well as capital punishment, at a lower cost, and in the event of wrongful conviction provides the opportunity for some restitution. The ONLY thing that capital punishment does is feed vengeance-filled bloodlust and that has no benefit to society and no place in the Justice system.

If even a single wrongfully convicted individual is murdered while an equally-effective, more affordable alternative that would have avoided it is in place then the capital punishment system is morally inexcusable.

But I'll compromise. I would say we can keep capital punishment so long as the person who sentenced the individual is brought up on murder charges should that person be found to be wrongfully convicted. After all, the sentencer effectively killed an innocent person. Shouldn't be a problem if they are committed to their sentence and the ruling, right? Just adding some personal responsibility to the mix.

I'll never understand how death penalty can be more expensive than keeping em alive and paying all their medical bills to boot. Sounds like they need a cheaper method of execution. I say a bullet at point blank range. If someone agrees with the wealth penalty they should have no objections to pulling the trigger right?

I will say death penalty should be reserved only for those we know without a doubt are guilty though. Like there was camera footage or a ton of eye witnesses all saying the same thing happened like general public not a bunch of friends/family ganging up on someone. Now days though enough eye witnesses like that and surely someone whipped out their phone and recorded it.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I'll never understand how death penalty can be more expensive than keeping em alive and paying all their medical bills to boot. Sounds like they need a cheaper method of execution. I say a bullet at point blank range. If someone agrees with the wealth penalty they should have no objections to pulling the trigger right?

I will say death penalty should be reserved only for those we know without a doubt are guilty though. Like there was camera footage or a ton of eye witnesses all saying the same thing happened like general public not a bunch of friends/family ganging up on someone. Now days though enough eye witnesses like that and surely someone whipped out their phone and recorded it.

It cost more because the death penalty has an extensive appeals process, which is needed or we would have even more wrongfully convicted people murdered by the government.

And you can't have multiple levels of guilt without the implication that other criminals are less guilty. I'm sure defense attorneys would love it. "So you say my client killed and ate his whole family, then why aren't you pushing for the death penalty?" It basically screams reasonable doubt.

---

Compsognathus posted...

It cost more because the death penalty has an extensive appeals process, which is needed or we would have even more wrongfully convicted people murdered by the government.

And you can't have multiple levels of guilt without the implication that other criminals are less guilty. I'm sure defense attorneys would love it. "So you say my client killed and ate his whole family, then why aren't you pushing for the death penalty?" It basically screams reasonable doubt.

I'm just saying irrefutable proof. Like literally no chance in hell they are innocent.

Most people in prison are indeed guilty but there is like .1 percent chance they where innocent.

There was a guy convicted for murder once purely on circumstantial evidence. It boiled down to carpet fibers found in his car and they did the research and found the chances of him having been in another house with that carpet would have been super extremely unlikey. Think only 3 people in the whole city (100s of thousands of people) or some shit had purchased that carpet for their home.

That I wouldn't call for a death penalty cause even though super slim there still was a possibility. If you have like legit camera footage though... Like say cops roll up on someone with body cams on and they manage to record someone shooting or stabbing someone to deat. You death penalty. We would have very few death penaltys though cause its usually not gonna play out that way

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I'm just saying irrefutable proof. Like literally no chance in hell they are innocent.

Most people in prison are indeed guilty but there is like .1 percent chance they where innocent.

There was a guy convicted for murder once purely on circumstantial evidence. It boiled down to carpet fibers found in his car and they did the research and found the chances of him having been in another house with that carpet would have been super extremely unlikey. Think only 3 people in the whole city (100s of thousands of people) or some shit had purchased that carpet for their home.

That I wouldn't call for a death penalty cause even though super slim there still was a possibility. If you have like legit camera footage though... Like say cops roll up on someone with body cams on and they manage to record someone shooting or stabbing someone to deat. You death penalty. We would have very few death penaltys though cause its usually not gonna play out that way

Okay but now answer the Defense Attorney's question without adding reasonable doubt for the jury: "If you are so confident my client is guilty, why are you not pressing for the death penalty?"

---

Compsognathus posted...

Okay but now answer the Defense Attorney's question without adding reasonable doubt for the jury: "If you are so confident my client is guilty, why are you not pressing for the death penalty?"

Cause if it where up to me it would be cut and dry sentencing laws stating certian things need to be provided for a death penalty to be pursued. Such as camera footage.

I'll be thr first to admit its probably a good thing I don't make these kinda laws cause honestly if someone is gonna die in prison anyways (life sentence or given like 100 years) id say just go ahead and execute them anyways cause they aint serving any purpose other than filling a bed in a prison which gets that prison more money. Like one guy at my unit. Has a 88 year sentence (which personally I disagree with based on his crime but thats beside the point) he wont work all he does is run a particular gang in the prison and watch tv all day. Hes nothing but a nusciance.

I want all sorts of prison reform though. Death penalty aside I feel sentences for everything but rape and murder should be largely reduced. At the same time though stop making prison an adult day care. Give em a year or two life really sucking and make em not wanna come back. Of course also put more funding into courses and whatnot to rehabilitate them.


---

It's a final curtesy.

---

Chunkey Simmons posted...

Could be wrong, but I figured the point of capital punishment was revenge

its supposed to be justice not revenge

---

I'm pretty sure they don't anymore

---

TerraSeeker posted...

It's a final curtesy.

Yeah I think it is the humane side of us. Yeah we gonna kill him but let him have one last piece of happiness.

And I'm that way about food anyways. I enforce rules at my prison till it comes to food. I dont fuck with a mans food.

Being hungry sucks and having only crappy food to eat sucks.

---

Best solution? Get rid of the death penalty.