> 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
