Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:33:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1033 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote:
>
> Okay, you are responding to opinions of two people mixed below, but I will just
> cut to the chase, Chris. You say killing mass murderers and repeat child
> molesters is evil. How would you deal with them?
> Simply incarcerate them so that
Yes.
> they may enjoy 3 squares a day
Yes, assuming they will work, they need to be properly fed so they can
perform as much work as possible, now if they chose not to work (or
chose to be so uncontrollable that they can not safely be put to work),
well, then they should get a rather unappetizing mash along with a
vitamin pill.
> free medical treatment
Reasonable medical treatment to:
- alleviate undue suffering (i.e., if a prisoner is dying of a painful
cancer, we'll at least give them pain medication)
- keep them healthy so they can work
- prevent spread of disease
> cable
I suspect TV is a fairly cost effective way to give prisoners enough
entertainment to keep them from going off the deep end. If the prisoner
is not being put away for life, it also gives them some connection to
society such that they won't be a good candidate for revolving door
syndrome from being so out of touch with society they can't possibly fit
back in.
> workout equipment,
To the extent that exercise is necessary for efficient health. If a
particular inmate can be most effectively used in an office job or some
such, then yes, they need a certain amount of exercise to stay healthy
(so they can pay off their debt by working). Also, well exercised
inmates are far less likely to try and satisfy their need for exercise
by beating up the guards.
> net access, etc, etc etc?
Well, they probably don't need much net access, but access to a decent
library is certainly reasonable (and I'll be happy to even donate some
books to that library so those who don't think it's necessary needn't
pay for it). Now an inmate who isn't in for life may need to be granted
controlled net access under the same reasoning as being allowed some TV
- if an inmate is not in for life, we would be absolutely unreasonable
if we don't afford the inmate the opportunity to learn to live in
society. Doing so requires among other things, being sufficiently in
touch with society that one doesn't come out with no clue about how
society has changed.
In other words, prison must teach responsibility, and to teach
responsibility, one must offer reward.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
