haha yeah raqes are so funny lol!

Who the hell wrote this article?

"A prisoner is claiming healthy eating choices are not being offered...

But before we get into that, did we mention he sixually abused a child."

This is so obnoxiously sensational.

All prison related problems can be solved the same way

1. Don't send non-violent people to prison.
2. Stop making prisons a place for "punishment", this system only makes criminals worse and more likely to be repeat offenders. Prisons should be places of rehabilitation.
3. Remove privatized prisons where people get money the longer you stay in jail.
4. Stop making up stupid laws to get people thrown in prison, no one should go to prison for having a crap ton of weed, seriously.



If they did all 4 of those things there would be considerably less people in prison and thus they could spend the extra money gianed on not having to take of as many prisoners on better food for them.

PROBLEM SOLVED

/THREAD.

FDA doesn't reccomend. His claim is that the amount of soy goes beyond the reccomended safe amount, and that he's suffering negative effects from the high soy content of his (prison provided) current diet.

The man filing this lawsuit commited the act of sixual battery against a child.

For even bringing up soy and how bad it is, they should increase the amount of soy in the food.

He deserves nothing.

It's easy to decide how a law should work when looking at it in the context of one individual. The thing about laws is that they affect everybody. A challenging inconvenience for lawmakers, yes, but a very real one. :shrug:

Besides, you can't hurt/kill someone with chemicals unless they've been sentenced to death in a court of law. If he can prove that the levels are harmful he has every right to take issue with it regardless of what he's done in the past. Arbitrarily revoking human rights for arbitrary reasons, no matter how good they seem, is a very slippery slope. Civics is a lot more complicated than, "well, he did bad, so screw him." There are further-reaching implications. It's not a matter of, "does this guy deserve better food?" It's a matter of, "is it ok for prisons to feed inmates unhealthy food because they've been convicted of a crime?"

I understand that. I fhe can prove its killing him, lower it.

But lets not let people such as him who [censored] a child decide our policies.

While his crime was certainly heinous, it doesn't remove his status of humanity.

We know nothing of what's going on in his head right now:

He could be overcome with guilt and shame at what he did, the thought of it eating away at his psyche at every waking moment.
He could care nothing for his victim, and be completely indifferent, even happy, with what he did.

Neither of those options have any effect on the matter at hand. If he can prove that there are negative effects on his person due to the soy, he needs to be given an alternate (but same quality) meal. To do otherwise would be equivalent of poisoning.

Edit:


The two situations aren't related. Just because he [censored] a child, that doesn't negate the legitimacy of his claim, should it be real. His claim/push for less/no soy could have a positive effect for other inmates, even if they don't care enough to push for it themselves.

Don't get me wrong, if there's compelling evidence that the guy beat a child then my heart says to put him in a room with a couple of angry guards and "accidentally" turn the cameras off. The other side is that my head is telling me, "if me or someone I care about ended up in prison for some reason I'd want their heath and rights protected." Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways.

We need to stop warehousing so many humans, especially the non-violent ones, and go with more corporal punishment. I would prefer to see petty criminals caned and sent on their way as opposed to locked up with other criminals with no hope of rehabilitation.

Or, the Scandinavian way, which seems to be much more effective.

At least he didn't feed the poor kid soy.

He didnt just beat the child, its called sixual battery for a reason. Just wanted to get the facts straight.

If someone who I cared about turned out to be a child rapist, I wouldnt care about them anymore. (Though saying that is easier said then done.)

ohh man someone suggested an Idea I did also.

nice to see someone using logic.

You still haven't addressed why this person shouldn't try to argue for better food in prison, should his claims turn to be legitimate.

It might be hard to stomach, but just because he [censored] a kid that doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to argue for better food in prison, the benefits of which would be passed along to all inmates.

You aren't thinking about this logically, you're feeling it. The article was written to specifically put people against the inmate by mentioning what he did. If you had no idea what he did to get thrown into prison would you be on his side? He's not the only prisoner that has to deal with the [censored] food, there's likely thousands more prisoners that have to deal with it, there's people in those prisons because of petty crimes like shop lifting and possession that has to deal with the food. You're saying that every prisoner in that system should have to deal with unhealthy food just because they're in prison.

Just kill 'em and be done with it

It doesn't work that way. You can't feed someone different food depending on what they were convicted of. The level of nasty of his crime is totally irrelevant to this issue.

I can understand why you think the article might allow for bias, but he could have been in prison for jaywalking -- the fact that he's complaining about healthy, free food, especially when the article states he has other choices as well.. two words come to mind. Tough [censored]. Prison isn't a four or five star restaurant, it costs taxpayers money.

As I understand the whole point is that he's complaining it's not healthy.

$47 million to feed prisoners. What :blink:
Just shoot them or have them do work until they die. Stuff feeding them nice things they don't deserve.

Well, it would certainly go a long way to deterring crime in the first place.

Exactly, you're not going to take the chance of commiting a crime if you know you'rer going to pay with your life...unless you're ready for death

Now let me provide an example of where that wouldn't work.
Man: Herp-de-derpty-derp, it appears that my job does not provide enough money to pay the bills and put food on the table I may have to shoplift some food for my family *steals meat milk and eggs from Walmart*
Officer of the law that happens to be a s
bystander: Stop in the name of the law etc.
Man: *gets arrested*
*in court*
Judge: Hurr durr, how do you plead
Man: Guilty
*man is sentenced to death by moe overdose as his family mourns him*
Derp!

But see, who thinks like that? That's not rational either. This country as so many bloody entitlement programs and social welfare programs that they could very likely have gotten food stamps.

Crime is crime.