So as to not hijack the death penalty thread- I kept asking a question there- how is the state and taxpayer obligated to feed, cloth and house a person convicted of a heinous crime, where they get better dental care than most Americans, better health care etc (they very fact that a prisoner HAS ANY healthcare is more than 43million Americans has 
)- instead of just killing them or forcing them to pay thier debt to society by performing medical experiments on them 
1) What level of care is a state "ethically or morally" required to give to a prisoner convicted of a hienous crime?
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
)- instead of just killing them or forcing them to pay thier debt to society by performing medical experiments on them 1) What level of care is a state "ethically or morally" required to give to a prisoner convicted of a hienous crime?
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
1) What level of care is a state "ethically or morally" required to give to a prisoner convicted of a hienous crime?
Three hots and a cot. Nutritous, yet eminently bland, gruel. Basic medicine. In short, basic care, whether it be housing, food, clothing, and/or medical, all of these we are obligated to provide, as we have determined to prevent the prisoner from providing for herself. If one objects to providing these things for a prisoner, then simply adopt capital punishment. Any more than that can be provided for by the prisoner's family, friends, and assets, with appropriate safeguards.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
If by "any" you mean "any and all", then no. If by "any" you mean "more than nothing", then yes. Basic preventative care and emergency care as necessary. No "elective" care. No sex change operations, no plastic surgery (unless necessary as a consequence of their incarceration, for instance, to repair burn damage from a prison fire they didn't start), no joint replacements, etc.
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Most Americans are not prevented from securing the care by the state. Failing to provide more than basic care is not "cruel and unusual", failing to provide basic care is cruel and unusual. Examine what not providing care would constitute in, say, your stomping grounds of Alaska.
The state builds a compound consisting of 20' high multi-layer barbed wire fences with guard towers, and "shoot to kill" orders. Throw the prisoners into the compound. That's it. Don't give them any food, don't provide shelter, no more clothing than what they wore when they were apprehended.
How long will they last? Will they get lucky and freeze to death quickly? Perhaps they'll suffer multiple bouts of extremely painful frostbite before they die of starvation...
Three hots and a cot. Nutritous, yet eminently bland, gruel. Basic medicine. In short, basic care, whether it be housing, food, clothing, and/or medical, all of these we are obligated to provide, as we have determined to prevent the prisoner from providing for herself. If one objects to providing these things for a prisoner, then simply adopt capital punishment. Any more than that can be provided for by the prisoner's family, friends, and assets, with appropriate safeguards.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
If by "any" you mean "any and all", then no. If by "any" you mean "more than nothing", then yes. Basic preventative care and emergency care as necessary. No "elective" care. No sex change operations, no plastic surgery (unless necessary as a consequence of their incarceration, for instance, to repair burn damage from a prison fire they didn't start), no joint replacements, etc.
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Most Americans are not prevented from securing the care by the state. Failing to provide more than basic care is not "cruel and unusual", failing to provide basic care is cruel and unusual. Examine what not providing care would constitute in, say, your stomping grounds of Alaska.
The state builds a compound consisting of 20' high multi-layer barbed wire fences with guard towers, and "shoot to kill" orders. Throw the prisoners into the compound. That's it. Don't give them any food, don't provide shelter, no more clothing than what they wore when they were apprehended.
How long will they last? Will they get lucky and freeze to death quickly? Perhaps they'll suffer multiple bouts of extremely painful frostbite before they die of starvation...
1) What level of care is a state "ethically or morally" required to give to a prisoner convicted of a hienous crime?
Bikerdad's "three hots and a cot" sounds good, along with basic medical and dental care. I'm not talking about orthodontics or plastic surgery--but treatments designed to keep them in adequate health.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
When the person's freedom and ability to care for himself is taken away, it becomes the captor's responsibility to provide food, housing and care for that person, regardless of the nature of the crime the person committed.
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Yes--it is cruel and unusual to not render care to prisoners regardless of who does not receive adequate care outside of prison. We should be asking ourselves if it is cruel and unusual that law-abiding inhabitants in our country do not receive care that prisoners are receiving as a basic human right.
Bikerdad's "three hots and a cot" sounds good, along with basic medical and dental care. I'm not talking about orthodontics or plastic surgery--but treatments designed to keep them in adequate health.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisnoner convicted of hienous crimes?
When the person's freedom and ability to care for himself is taken away, it becomes the captor's responsibility to provide food, housing and care for that person, regardless of the nature of the crime the person committed.
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Yes--it is cruel and unusual to not render care to prisoners regardless of who does not receive adequate care outside of prison. We should be asking ourselves if it is cruel and unusual that law-abiding inhabitants in our country do not receive care that prisoners are receiving as a basic human right.
Most Americans are not prevented from securing the care by the state.
Totally untrue. I have a friend, she was making 400 dollars a month, just getting back on her feet after a abusive relationship. She needed some basic care- I took her to medicaid office- there is NO benefit for those over 24 without children. Period. Even emergency care, at the least, they will put you further into the hole by reporting you to a credit agency for bad debt. But something chronic, but not an emergency? Nope, nada nothing. Won't even pull an infected tooth for free- something you can get in jail.
She can not recieve even CLOSE to equal care of the worst prison system in the US.
So if it is so horrendous to deny basic medical care to prisoners- why is it okay to deny it to law-abiding, albiet poor, very poor citizens(as in money- not bad)?
Why should the state afford ANY thing to an inmate it doesn't afford to any other law abiding citizen?
What onus does the state have to feed, cloth and house a murderer or pedophile?
Totally untrue. I have a friend, she was making 400 dollars a month, just getting back on her feet after a abusive relationship. She needed some basic care- I took her to medicaid office- there is NO benefit for those over 24 without children. Period. Even emergency care, at the least, they will put you further into the hole by reporting you to a credit agency for bad debt. But something chronic, but not an emergency? Nope, nada nothing. Won't even pull an infected tooth for free- something you can get in jail.
She can not recieve even CLOSE to equal care of the worst prison system in the US.
So if it is so horrendous to deny basic medical care to prisoners- why is it okay to deny it to law-abiding, albiet poor, very poor citizens(as in money- not bad)?
Why should the state afford ANY thing to an inmate it doesn't afford to any other law abiding citizen?
What onus does the state have to feed, cloth and house a murderer or pedophile?
1) What level of care is a state "ethically or morally" required to give to a prisoner convicted of a hienous crime?
The prisoner has been removed from normal society against her will. Therefore, the government which has removed her ability to provide for her own care takes on the responsibility of caring for her. I'm not sure if this is really a "moral or ethical" question as a practical one. In any case, suffering which is not absolutely necessary does not benefit anyone, so it is to be avoided whenever possible.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisoner convicted of hienous crimes?
The government obligates itself, in a sense. It says to the prisoner "We cannot allow you to take care of yourself, because you harm others in the process. Therefore we will take care of you, because we are obligated to remove your freedom."
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Apples and oranges. The government forces the prisoner to accept its care. The government offers its care to the ordinary citizen in need. If one of these two systems is broken, fix it; but don't break the other one to make things more even.
The prisoner has been removed from normal society against her will. Therefore, the government which has removed her ability to provide for her own care takes on the responsibility of caring for her. I'm not sure if this is really a "moral or ethical" question as a practical one. In any case, suffering which is not absolutely necessary does not benefit anyone, so it is to be avoided whenever possible.
2) Is the state really obligated at all to provide ANY care to a prisoner convicted of hienous crimes?
The government obligates itself, in a sense. It says to the prisoner "We cannot allow you to take care of yourself, because you harm others in the process. Therefore we will take care of you, because we are obligated to remove your freedom."
3) Is not providing care "cruel and unusual"- considering most Americans dont' even get that level of care that a prisoner gets?
Apples and oranges. The government forces the prisoner to accept its care. The government offers its care to the ordinary citizen in need. If one of these two systems is broken, fix it; but don't break the other one to make things more even.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.