> In article <n-SdnaTsSr-XTx3VnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
>
>> "Nathan Sanders" <nathansanders@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:nathansanders-0DD686.12414318072008@64.209.0-93.rev.gaoland.net...
>> > In article <iY-dnbPvGtxAJh3VnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> > "Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The prinicples of the US justice system are supposed to involve
>> >> *humane*
>> >> treatment of criminals, because allegedly, we are a *humane* people.
>> >> If
>> >> the
>> >> *cruel and unusual* is what you would prefer, perhaps you should go
>> >> live
>> >> under the rule of the Taliban, where you'll feel more at home.
>> >
>> > Note that "cruel and unusual" is modifying "punishment", not
>> > "treatment". We can still treat criminals cruelly and unusually, as
>> > long as that treatment constitutes ordinary punishment.
>> >
>> > Refusing health care to someone is certainly cruel *treatment*, but
>> > it's hardly cruel *punishment* for a sociopath who remorselessly
>> > slaughtered a pregnant woman and her viable child.
>> >
>> > It would however be cruel punishment for a thief or jaywalker.
>> >
>> > What constitutes cruel punishment is context dependent, because
>> > punishment itself is a context dependent concept. In a crime with
>> > victims, I'd even argue that any punishment up to and including "eye
>> > for an eye" is not cruel---it's deserved.
>>
>> Not according to US laws, and not according to the prevailing philosophy
>> of
>> the US justice system. "Eye for an eye" is not addressed in the US
>> justice
>> system.
>
> I'm largely expressing my personal beliefs about what US law should
> be, not what it really is. I should have thrown in some "should"s and
> "if I had my druthers"s in there to make that clearer.
>
>> What is the real purpose of such violence and veangence?
>
> Two philosophical and two pragmatic purposes:
>
> philosophical: justice and shifting resources from something
> questionable (extending the life of a criminal) to other less
> questionable pursuits (extending the life of a non-criminal, for
> example).
>
> pragmatic: removal of destructive elements from our society and
> deterrence of future crimes.
>
>> The issue was not to defend her maliciousness, but whether it would be
>> humane to throw this woman in a dumpster to die. What does that say about
>> us?
>
> I agree that the dumpster is cruel and unusual (because I'm not aware
> of her having dumped her victims in dumpsters).
>
> Stabbing her a dozen times or so would be eye for an eye justice.
>
> Letting her die as nature takes its course is mercy.
>
> Paying millions of dollars to extend her life is ludicrous. Why
> should *convicted, unrepentant murders* receive free health care when
> the rest of us don't? I'd much rather take the $1.5 million or so
> needed to keep her alive another six months and spend it on anyone
> else with cancer *who didn't commit murder*.
OK, don't give her health care. But do we have to toss her in a dumpster?
