> In article <n-SdnaTsSr-XTx3VnZ2dnUVZ_rvin...@comcast.com>,
> "Newk Indofman" <newk.indof...@lovesyou.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Nathan Sanders" <nathansand...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:nathansanders-0DD686.12414318072008@64.209.0-93.rev.gaoland.net...
> > > In article <iY-dnbPvGtxAJh3VnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@comcast.com>,
> > > "Newk Indofman" <newk.indof...@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*.
