Inmates on Death Row;last meals

[The Dude]

http://www.thememoryhole.org/deaths/texas-final-meals.htm

Some "Refused last meal" while 1 had "Yogurt" listed......

Maybe those who refused thier last meal are the ones that feel guilty and sad about what they have done... Good theory?

Its sad in a way because the people that THEY MURDERED didnt have a choice for a last meal!

[hbk619]

Some of those people don't half eat alot

[christina>you]

I didn't read all of it, but I found some interesting ones... they get very detailed!

Four fried eggs sunny side up, four sausage patties, one chicken fried steak patty, one bowl of white country gravy, five pieces of white toast, five tacos with meat and cheese only, four Dr. Peppers with ice one the side & five mint sticks.

Fifteen slices of cheese, three fried eggs, three buttered toasts, two hamburger patties with cheese, 2 tomato sliced, one sliced onion, french fries with salad dressing, 2 lb. of crispy fried bacon, one quart chocolate milk and one pint of fresh strawberries

[jwenting]

last meal for condemned criminals, waste of food...
In fact any expense on their behalf is wasted.

Arrest them at dawn, convict them at noon, deny their appeal at dusk, and hang them next dawn.

[Infarction]

last meal for condemned criminals, waste of food... In fact any expense on their behalf is wasted.

Arrest them at dawn, convict them at noon, deny their appeal at dusk, and hang them next dawn.

If only we could actually do that...

[jbennet]

i think the death penalty is bad

[Ancient Dragon]

last meal for condemned criminals, waste of food... In fact any expense on their behalf is wasted. Arrest them at dawn, convict them at noon, deny their appeal at dusk, and hang them next dawn.

Are you sure you're not American? I though we were the only ones who thought like that.:)

But more seriously, I think we should abolish the death penalty because (1) its cheaper to keep them alive, (2) the punishment lasts longer, and (3) too many innocent people have been put to death. We can always let someone out of prison who was innocent of the crime, but we can't bring him back to life.

[~s.o.s~]

> its cheaper to keep them alive,

I really wonder how this thing is true.

[Dave Sinkula]

> its cheaper to keep them alive,

I really wonder how this thing is true.

A: The American legal system.

[dcc]

> its cheaper to keep them alive,

I really wonder how this thing is true.

"Statistically" it is true, but even Mark Twain recognized the problem with statistics..."Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable".

The problem with the death sentence is that it is final once applied, and sometimes the judicial system gets it wrong. If we could guarantee that the person was guilty then I would say hang em, and do it right now. The death sentence as it stands right now is of little or no use as a deterrent, in California there is the argument that the lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment...excuse me?!?

As for the last meal...chefs surprise, want to guess what it is???

[Infarction]

Are you sure you're not American? I though we were the only ones who thought like that.:) But more seriously, I think we should abolish the death penalty because (1) its cheaper to keep them alive, (2) the punishment lasts longer, and (3) too many innocent people have been put to death. We can always let someone out of prison who was innocent of the crime, but we can't bring him back to life.

While I certainly can't argue against number 3, I think number 1 is flat out wrong. I'll even supply 50 feet of rope if they need it, and it's reusable. Beats putting 'em in a government sponsored building for 20+ years.

However, your third point is very important. It's extremely difficult to actually execute someone when the chance does exists that they are innocent. What do you think of a system where the death penalty would be carried out after a fairly long time period? For example, if they haven't proven their innocence after 15 years, then they will face the penalty for their crimes.

[Ancient Dragon]

The reason I said its cheaper to keep them alive is because of all the legal fees required to appeal the death sentence -- automatic appeal I might add. The lawyers can be haggling for 20 years or more, costing tax payers millions of $$$. Here is a study done in the USA about 10 years ago.
From this; the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life

[jwenting]

> its cheaper to keep them alive,

I really wonder how this thing is true.

In the practice of the US system it is. Of course if you use my proposed system it's far cheaper to execute them.

[jwenting]

of course a far more profitable way to do it (and at the same time helping society a LOT) is to dismantle the convict and use the organs and limbs for transplants.
There's an eternal shortage of transplants, and a lot of (mostly) healthy people in prisons sitting around costing money.
Those prisoners could very effectively help solve the problem of people dying in hospital for lack of organ donors.

In fact in several countries that's what convicts are used for, China for example.

[Aia]

>In fact in several countries that's what convicts are used for, China for example.

Where did you learn that fact?.

[Infarction]

In the practice of the US system it is. Of course if you use my proposed system it's far cheaper to execute them.

The US system is pretty screwed up at this point though, IMHO.of course a far more profitable way to do it (and at the same time helping society a LOT) is to dismantle the convict and use the organs and limbs for transplants.
There's an eternal shortage of transplants, and a lot of (mostly) healthy people in prisons sitting around costing money.
Those prisoners could very effectively help solve the problem of people dying in hospital for lack of organ donors.

In fact in several countries that's what convicts are used for, China for example.
I do like that idea. Forced labor isn't a bad one either, they might even offset a bit of the cost of keeping 'em around.

[jbennet]

Yes, that would be goodl. Why not make all the prisoners build roads or something useful

[Dave Sinkula]

Yes, that would be goodl. Why not make all the prisoners build roads or something useful

Again, that's the current US system. Some would turn that into "cruel and unusual punishment".

[jbennet]

I wouldnt. I call that fair punishment for their crimes. Also it teaches them skills

[Aia]

Again, that's the current US system. Some would turn that into "cruel and unusual punishment".

You hit the nail in the head. Over here, (USA) every thing has to be
so politically correct, that we are handicapping ourselves to the point
of paralisis.