In article <7tWdnTwhIabCixzVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Newk Indofman" <newk.indofman@lovesyou.org> wrote:
> "Nathan Sanders" <nathansanders@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:nathansanders-7BE334.14090418072008@64.209.0-93.rev.gaoland.net...
>
> > 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?
Note that Vandar, not me, is the dumpster-advocate! I'm fine with
leaving her in her cell, and letting the cancer eat it her up.
> She didn't show any mercy to her victims, but does that mean we don't show
> any mercy, either?
Merciful justice is an interesting, complex issue that raises some
difficult questions. Which criminals deserve mercy, and which don't?
How can we tell them apart if they've committed the same crime? How
do we know if a criminal's pleas for mercy come from genuine remorse
rather than self-preservation? Who gets to decide which criminals get
mercy and how much mercy they get shown: the victims, society, the
courts? What pragmatic, tangible benefits do we get for showing
mercy? Or is mercy more of a grander, higher measure of our "worth"
as a society, less important for our daily functioning and more
important for how our culture and our legacy is perceived?
> (For the record, I think our wealthy nation could easily afford to give
> everyone adequate health care, even prisoners on death row.)
I agree, but since we don't do it, I think it's absolutely insane to
give adequate health care to criminals while non-criminals are left to
fend for themselves. Until we have complete health care for all
citizens regardless of their criminal status, if anyone is going to be
getting free health care, we should *start* with the non-criminals!
Nathan
