and if you were on here a few years ago, would have heard about the women who died from drinking too much water... everything can be poisonous is a massive enough quantity

The frustrating thing about this thread is that some people are thinking in terms of a handful of cases where truly horrible people have been rightfully convicted of horrible crimes (like 1st-degree murder, child abuse, etc.) rather than looking at it from a civics/sociological perspective. A lot of policies don't make sense when you only look at a cross-section of the people affected by it. You have to look at the big picture, and the people that you think "deserve horrible punishments" are not only a small percentage of those affected, but also not always clearly identifiable.

Don't even get me started on the idea that 2011 forensic science is somehow infallible compared to 1970's forensic science simply because it's much better. Also, making sure to "do all the checks" means very little when people are framed, wrongly-accused, etc. and are still convicted. While I don't disagree that people that have committed certain crimes don't deserve the rights they have, the implications of actually putting policies in place that we can trust to enforce such sentiments are terrifying.

This!!!
When law abidiing citizens have less rights to healthy food, medical care, and housing than criminals, something is seriously screwed up.

So, because there are poor people in the world there shouldn't be rules about what prisons serve as food? I think we're drawing relationships in places they don't really exist. :shrug: There are problems that are very difficult to solve (poverty) and problems that are fairly easy to solve (establishing standards for the food given to people in publicly-managed institutions, including public schools). The fact that someone is suffering somewhere for some reason that we can't find a fix for doesn't logically justify poor standards in another area that we have control of. They're just not related.

If I'm wrong, then someone please explain how we can properly punish the deserving parties with poor food so that we can give the good stuff to...what...soup kitchens? It would cost more to administer such a program than it would to just buy the food. If we're going to throw money at undefinable solutions to problems that we as a society don't fully understand then wouldn't "teaching people to stay out of prison" or "education" be more applicable to the subject at hand?

Because there are LAW ABIDING poor people in the world, they should be priortized over someone who does not adhere to the law. Why should their plight be of less consequence? Why should a child rapist be given more rights to healthcare and nutrition than his victim?

This isn't about other prisoners that have commited unrelated crimes, as much as it isn't about poor people.
It's about an individual who chose to brutally sixually molest a child. Who took the child's right to experience the most tender and loving aspect of advlt affection, in their own time, at their own time of choosing. He took it and ripped it to shreds.
It's not about the guy who was in for drug dealing. It's not about the guy in for forgery. It's not about the guy in for stealing twinkies from 7-11. It's about the irony of a sixual offender [censored]ing because he thinks HIS rights supercede anyone elses, especially that of his victim. He's lucky he hasn't been shanked.

I'm not denying this. What I'm saying is that the problems and solutions here are incredibly complex. In an ideal world "good people" could be prioritized over "bad people." The problem is identifying who falls into which camp and where to draw lines as far as what people deserve (both good and bad). I guess I'm speaking in terms of things that are possible rather than ideal. :shrug: You can't just arbitrarily say that because there are people without refrigerators people that embezzled money deserve to get food poisoning until everyone in the country has a refrigerator.

Things like this can't realistically be viewed in terms of absolutes or individuals, so I guess it really depends on whether we're talking about this from a sociological standpoint or a philosophical one. In general (and this is just my own experience) pragmatism gets more done than idealism does (which to me seems to oftentimes only serve to divide people further).

Things like this have to be looked-upon as a system rather than case-by-case because the administrative resources don't exist to do so. Who decides what's "bad enough" to be considered a "bad person?" When we attempt to design a system to avoid punishing/torturing people unfairly we risk making things "too good" for the people that "deserve to have their rights taken away" (I'm using quotes because these things are EXTREMELY subjective). If we attempt make the situation for prisoners more harsh (or attempt to pick-and-choose based on offense) we are more likely to cause unjust suffering. Which is worse? There is only a small window of uncertainly that is allowed by our capability to accurately and fairly judge people. On which side should be err?

This isn't about his crime. The fact that it just happens to be this guy that's speaking out against an allegedly harmful condition doesn't negate the potential legitimacy of his claim. Half of the prison could be agreeing with him for all we know.

Hold on people, claiming that since there are people in their for petty crimes we need to spend money on prisoners. For petty crimes you get out in a short time, I think you can stomach soy for 6 months.

Not too mention that pretty much every government is in debt, we cant afford to spend money on the ne'er do wells of society.

As well saying that we cant feed him specialty I know you cant have individual plans for everyone and I never even suggested that. As well I never said hsi claims shouldnt be taken seriously. If he can prove its making him sick, by all means change the foods. Im just saying I really dont give two [censored] about the well being of a child molestor. Okay, he MOLESTED AND OR [censored] AND OR ASSUALTED A CHILD!!!!!!! He should be rotting in prison, they arent supposed to be nice places. Thats why we send bad people their.

All I'm saying is that I agree in principle, but in practice you can't plan prison meals that way. :shrug: If the food is actually unhealthy then specifics about that one guy aren't relevant to a discussion about whether or not the situation should be remedied. Again, I'm not necessarily even talking about this specific situation as much as I'm responding to some of the general hostility in this thread toward anyone that's been convicted of a crime.

You kinda forgot the part about this not only affecting him, it affects all the prisoners. He's just the only one who's said anything.

You know what is not right? Not putting a murderer to death. I say we give them old sparky. Then see how ghey feel about it.

Does not matter they gave up their constitutional rights when they commited the crime.

It's not right according to you. Morals aren't objective, and not everyone's values of right and wrong reflect yours.

Did they? Where does is say that in U.S. law?

They are no longer citizens so the constitution no longer applies to them...Although part of it still does but not much.

When they take someone's life from them, they deserve the same fate.

When one commits a felony.

Again, according to you. Some may share that view, and others may not. Neither makes you right or wrong, but only until you push your morals on to society as a whole.

Note, the prisoner in question didn't kill anyone.

The commiting of a crime, even a federal felony, does not revoke citizenship. (treason is the only "crime" that can cause the loss of citizenship) Even non-citizens still have rights under the United States constituion. The Constitution only singles out citizens for things like voting, federal political office, and similar duties of the citizenry. The right to, say, free speech, Habeas corpus, to assemble, applies to everyone, citizen or not. Criminals are still citizens.

@nilecroc, committing a crime is not "giving up your constitutional rights." In reality, the states and the federal government have the option, in some but not all areas, to discriminate on the basis of previous criminal history. The criminal isn't giving anything up, the government is intentionally choosing to discriminate and take something away from them. Notice that the constitution protects the right to vote from racial, six, or age discrimination, but not discrimination based upon the committing of crimes.

Soy doesn't negatively impact everyone, and soy isn't inherently bad or "toxic" when consumed in moderation. This poison [censored] is quite exaggerated. A soy burger is ~ 14 grams of soy, and the FDA recommends ~ 25 grams per day. Unless this guy somehow gorges himself with soy burgers or solely eats soy meat, an otherwise healthy person shouldn't get sick from it. If he has gastro related issues (guess what, I do as well, and I avoid soy products, but soy is also prevalent in the formula I feed my daughter on occasion and I don't see the uproar about how toxic that is), or allergy issues, he should be watching his own diet. And then of course, above all of that, they have plenty of non-soy options for food, which includes vegetables and other food far healthier than most poor people in the U.S. can afford.

If Florida changed their soy to all meat to appease these people, the cost of feeding them would easily double. The U.S. court system has already taken on the issue of food in prisons and declared the prisons in Florida to be treating prisoners humanely. If what they're asking for is food more suitable for a decent home cooked meal, they should kindly [censored] off and pay for it themselves, starting off by not being in prison in the first place.

Just to level the playing field, so we all know what is officially on the books..

so the discussion is what's adequate.


ok, now let's continue

Dunno about you, but I like to think the reason I don't go around beating old women to death is because it is wrong, not because I may be caught, arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced, and punished .



At the end of the day, who does vindictive vengeance actually benefit? The deed is already done, and making someone else suffer doesn't somehow change that. An eye for an eye for an eye for an eye... and sooner or later the whole world is blind.

All you do is increase suicides in the people who might otherwise change their ways, and give hateful people more reason to hate.

When it comes to prevention, if the moderate severity crime (assault, armed robbery?) I've committed is going to result in summary execution if I'm caught, it makes no difference if I kill anyone who puts me in danger of capture or prosecution. I'm done for either way, so I may as well do anything I can to increase my chances of getting away with it :shrug:.


http://alexmasi.photoshelter.com/gallery/Halden-Prison-Luxury-detention-in-Norway/G0000.pWT7uxO5qE/ is Norway's shiniest, newest prison. Now, if you compare crime rates in http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/NO/crime.html and http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/US/crime.html you may notice that Norway has around 20% more thefts per 100,000 people... and half as many murders, and half as many raqes. Additionally (not from those links), only 20% of them return to prison within two years of leaving -- compared to over 60% in three years for the USA.

Convicted criminals getting better food than law abiding folks is a fair argument... in the opposite direction from how its being used here. You shouldn't be asking, "Why are criminals prisoners getting better food than the poor?", you should be asking, "Why are the poor eating worse than the minimum standard we set for prisoners?". The problem is not that criminals are being treated too well, it is that non criminals are being treated too poorly (excuse the incidental pun). Same goes for victims of crime; if their treatment is unsatisfactory, isn't the solution to treat them better, not to treat someone else worse?

EDIT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1384308/Norways-controversial-cushy-prison-experiment--catch-UK.html about one of Norway's new prisons. Despite being from the Daily Mail, its not bad (the writer mostly just describes stuff and lets other people speak for themselves).