Assistance for poor VS "healing" Death Row inmates

[CABVOL]

My son works for Kentucky State Penitentiary. We were talking last night and he was filling me in on some things where he works. What he told me has me extremely upset and baffled.

There is an inmate on death row there that has had his execution delayed indefinitely because he needs a hip replacement, and no physician will do it.

Another inmate has had his execution delayed because he has Stage 4 cancer and is receiving chemo treatments everyday at tax payers' expense.

Another has had his delayed because he has a heart murmur.

According to my son, the state is not allowed to execute an inmate that "is not in good health."


I have a co-worker that is separated from her husband, receives no support from her estranged husband, has two kids, barely makes enough here to where she can even buy groceries as it gets close to the next payday, YET, she makes too much money to receive any assistance from the state. OH, the estranged husband is "disabled", gets food stamps, AND works for cash on the side.

According to my son, KSP has an annual budget of $32 million.

Am I the only one that sees a problem?

Let the debate.
Later, rednecks.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

:whistling: Sounds like crazy azz liberals running things in Kentucky.

 

[therealUT]

Just curious, OP, what are your thoughts re:assistance to the elderly?

 

[DC_Vol]

opcorn:

 

[vols 30]

Death row inmates should receive nothing but basic medical care.

 

[barknoxbrawler]

I know your pain op. FYI- wheat makes a better toast crust then white bread.

 

[OrangeBlood4life]

Why in the eff would you give someone on death row a hip replacement.

 

[CNCVol88]

Why in the eff would you give someone on death row a hip replacement.

Or chemo. Seems like that's the cosmos/god/karma/whatever taking care of business for you.

 

[hog88]

Or chemo. Seems like that's the cosmos/god/karma/whatever taking care of business for you.

I don't mind them giving them the care that they need, heck they might end up being released. However, once the appeals are done and the day comes, why would a new hip or another round of chemo stand in the way?

 

[CABVOL]

Just curious, OP, what are your thoughts re:assistance to the elderly?

I am judging where this is going, but I will bite...

I am for the elderly receiving assistance, if they are financially unable to care for themselves (i.e. not rich and have little to no means to adequately support themselves). I am also for assistance for those that cannot adequately provide for themselves or their families.

The thing about the situations in the initial post has to do with our tax dollars (and Kentucky has very little in its budget) being spent on making death row inmates "well" before they can be executed for their crimes. Yet, struggling families that work hard, but may not have the education to make a lot of money, cannot gain assistance from the state because they make "too much money" in the state's eyes.

Before anyone says that the elderly are going to die soon too, the inmates consciously made the decision to "do the crime" that put them on death row. The elderly, in my opinion, should receive whatever care they or their POA chose.

It just appears to me as if the state holds these inmates in higher regard than they do honest, hardworking people that barely make it.

I just cannot grasp the idea of that being okay in our society.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

I've never understood the concept of giving extensive medical care to someone who the state plans to kill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

I am judging where this is going, but I will bite...

I am for the elderly receiving assistance, if they are financially unable to care for themselves (i.e. not rich and have little to no means to adequately support themselves). I am also for assistance for those that cannot adequately provide for themselves or their families.

The thing about the situations in the initial post has to do with our tax dollars (and Kentucky has very little in its budget) being spent on making death row inmates "well" before they can be executed for their crimes. Yet, struggling families that work hard, but may not have the education to make a lot of money, cannot gain assistance from the state because they make "too much money" in the state's eyes.

Before anyone says that the elderly are going to die soon too, the inmates consciously made the decision to "do the crime" that put them on death row. The elderly, in my opinion, should receive whatever care they or their POA chose.

It just appears to me as if the state holds these inmates in higher regard than they do honest, hardworking people that barely make it.

I just cannot grasp the idea of that being okay in our society.

Do you support medical care and assistance for the elderly that are either above a certain age or terminally ill?

I would wager that the government spends a greater sum for medical care which is known to be futile than they do for the entire prison system (and the amount they spend on the latter is outrageous).

I see your point and also see the absurdity you are attacking. It is absurd. But, it's certainly not the most funded absurdity in this great nation.

 

[CABVOL]

Do you support medical care and assistance for the elderly that are either above a certain age or terminally ill?

I would wager that the government spends a greater sum for medical care which is known to be futile than they do for the entire prison system (and the amount they spend on the latter is outrageous).

I see your point and also see the absurdity you are attacking. It is absurd. But, it's certainly not the most funded absurdity in this great nation.

I completely agree that there are many areas that need to be revised and in areas that cost more than the specific examples I noted, I just wanted to give those three specific examples that I believe are outrageous.

I run a radiology department in a small hospital. I see waste every day. I do believe people should have living wills, so they can choose what care they receive if they ever should become incapacitated. Honest citizens deserve that choice in my opinion.

My choice...I have told my staff that if I ever get in the shape some of our elderly patients are in and 'y'all ever do this stuff to me...', I tell them that I will haunt them after I die.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Just curious, OP, what are your thoughts re:assistance to the elderly?

Define elderly. Also there is a huge difference between a person who has made it to old age and one who has committed a heinous capital crime.

 

[WooPigSooie]

/thread

 

[FLVOL_79]

The prisons should let Cancer do its job.

 

[therealUT]

Define elderly. Also there is a huge difference between a person who has made it to old age and one who has committed a heinous capital crime.

Is there much of a difference in spending on a replacement hip/knee for a death row inmate and a person with terminal cancer who, according to all estimates has less than six months to live? Further, say they have cancer because they chose to smoke a pack a day for 50 years and continue to do so?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Is there much of a difference in spending on a replacement hip/knee for a death row inmate and a person with terminal cancer who, according to all estimates has less than six months to live? Further, say they have cancer because they chose to smoke a pack a day for 50 years and continue to do so?

A death row inmate should be in a box with no natural light and forced to watch Frozen over and over. Hip replacement be damned they will welcome deaths sweet release.

An elderly person can still contribute to society.

 

[CNCVol88]

A death row inmate should be in a box with no natural light and forced to watch Frozen over and over. Hip replacement be damned they will welcome deaths sweet release.

An elderly person can still contribute to society.

I like let it go. :/

Then again I can see it being a song that the Cia will use to torture people.

 

[therealUT]

A death row inmate should be in a box with no natural light and forced to watch Frozen over and over. Hip replacement be damned they will welcome deaths sweet release.

An elderly person can still contribute to society.

Let's assume capital punishment is justified. Now, let's assume your version of death row is policy. Would you find yourself regretting such a policy if such an inmate, after living in such conditions for 1, 5, 10, or 20 years, were found to be not guilty a minute prior to their scheduled execution (say someone else confesses to those crimes either out of a guilty conscience or because they were caught for other crimes and through the investigation it became abundantly clear that they committed the crime for which this other person had been sentenced)? Would you think some heinous injustice and wrong had been inflicted on the inmate, who we now understand to be not guilty?

We know all of the following: eye-witness testimony is not 100% reliable, DNA matches are never 100%, blood-type matches are even less reliable, and fingerprints, contrary to popular opinion, are not unique (a very interesting report on this subject came from Scotland Yard this past year). With such knowledge, we ought to be very wary about sentencing individuals in ways which are absolutely irrevocable (killing them, putting them in solitary confinement for extended periods, etc.) We also know that capital punishment is not a deterrence, and it damn sure is not corrective.

So, basically, capital punishment is purely retributive, but if that is the case, then we had better be absolutely certain that the individual at the receiving end actually deserves the retribution. Such assurance can conceivable only be given through video evidence, and even that, as programs like photoshop and other CG platforms can render changes to video footage to be completely masked, is tenuous now and will be more tenuous as we go forward.

For those that think killing someone for their transgressions is justified, the implementation of such measures either requires that such measures never be implemented or that they be implemented very imperfectly and imprecisely. That is, the advocate of capital punishment must commit him/herself to the position that it is okay to kill innocent persons. But, if they commit to that position, then they have a hard time justifying their revulsion to murderers...a revulsion which they feel ought to lead to capital punishment.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Let's assume capital punishment is justified. Now, let's assume your version of death row is policy. Would you find yourself regretting such a policy if such an inmate, after living in such conditions for 1, 5, 10, or 20 years, were found to be not guilty a minute prior to their scheduled execution (say someone else confesses to those crimes either out of a guilty conscience or because they were caught for other crimes and through the investigation it became abundantly clear that they committed the crime for which this other person had been sentenced)? Would you think some heinous injustice and wrong had been inflicted on the inmate, who we now understand to be not guilty?

We know all of the following: eye-witness testimony is not 100% reliable, DNA matches are never 100%, blood-type matches are even less reliable, and fingerprints, contrary to popular opinion, are not unique (a very interesting report on this subject came from Scotland Yard this past year). With such knowledge, we ought to be very wary about sentencing individuals in ways which are absolutely irrevocable (killing them, putting them in solitary confinement for extended periods, etc.) We also know that capital punishment is not a deterrence, and it damn sure is not corrective.

So, basically, capital punishment is purely retributive, but if that is the case, then we had better be absolutely certain that the individual at the receiving end actually deserves the retribution. Such assurance can conceivable only be given through video evidence, and even that, as programs like photoshop and other CG platforms can render changes to video footage to be completely masked, is tenuous now and will be more tenuous as we go forward.

For those that think killing someone for their transgressions is justified, the implementation of such measures either requires that such measures never be implemented or that they be implemented very imperfectly and imprecisely. That is, the advocate of capital punishment must commit him/herself to the position that it is okay to kill innocent persons. But, if they commit to that position, then they have a hard time justifying their revulsion to murderers...a revulsion which they feel ought to lead to capital punishment.

The short answer : No.

The long answer : Sh!t happens.

 

[therealUT]

The short answer : No.

The long answer : Sh!t happens.

Nothing like chalking up killing individuals to just: **** happens. If that is so, then homicide falls under the same general category of '**** happens', right?

How about this for a change: if you are going to support measures and policies that are absolute and that intentionally kill persons, then offer a real ****ing defense and some real ****ing support. If you neither care to do so nor have the actually competency and capability to do so, then stop supporting such policies.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Nothing like chalking up killing individuals to just: **** happens. If that is so, then homicide falls under the same general category of '**** happens', right?

How about this for a change: if you are going to support measures and policies that are absolute and that intentionally kill persons, then offer a real ****ing defense and some real ****ing support. If you neither care to do so nor have the actually competency and capability to do so, then stop supporting such policies.

Homicide is the poster child for "sh!t happens". I could leave work today and some ass with road rage shoots his gun off on the highway and hits me instead of the 1994 Honda with 2 donuts and a Puerto Rican flag/air fresher that almost side swiped him because they were trying to text on a phone and eat churros at the same time. Sh!t happens.

A guy on death row can appeal as much as he/she wants, I don't care. With the advances in forensic science the chances that people will be wrongly convicted are slim. And if by some chance some guy was convicted of murder tomorrow and in 20 years some new super minority report DNA fracking technique exonerates him then I do believe he is in for a $4,000,000 pay day. I could be wrong but I believe if wrongly convicted and found innocent you receive upwards of $200,000 per year of incarceration.

But back to Sh!t Happens..instead of over analyzing everything or assuming a situation is more complicated than it actually is, sh!t happens is still the best explanation hands down.

A prisoner should not be "in good health" before execution. Let nature take its course. Is cancer eating away at his ass? Let nature take its course. It's organic..its green, its non GMO.

 

[therealUT]

And if by some chance some guy was convicted of murder tomorrow and in 20 years some new super minority report DNA fracking technique exonerates him then I do believe he is in for a $4,000,000 pay day.

You do know that there have been death row inmates that have been exonerated without any 'super minority report' stuff, right?

Further, regarding the huge 'pay-day', some persons aren't willing to give up 20 years of their life for any sum of money. On top of that, I'd be willing to bet you would have a price in which you would turn down the $200,000/yr. I'm quite certain you would reject such an offer of $200,000/yr, payable at the end of the term, if you spend the rest of your life, until your 99th birthday, in prison. Further, I imagine we can begin counting down from there to find your exact price. That being the case, it is not unreasonable, in principle, for an individual to turn down even a year in prison for $200,000. I'd turn that down in a heartbeat.

 

[CountVolcula]

Death row inmates should receive nothing but a bullet.

Fyp