Shouldn't be stealing.
Why was his wife not out working, is she disabled, why doesn't she claim on that for money?
Do they have any child benefits that could provide a few pounds to buy a meal?
Why don't they sell a few things and scrap together for a meal?
Why does this man have no money in the first place?

I get what your saying but what is law is law and it must be upheld, though for "humane" reasons that man would probably go nothing more than community service and his kids put into care if he can't provide for them.

But does he deserve to die over 20 dollars worth of food?

Nobody said every crime was a death penalty. We just said prison doesn't need to be the Hyatt.

Of course not, that's why the punishments are -supposedly- catered to fit the crime.



That said what a lot of people here inadvertently are advocating is sharia law.. i.e. draconian punishments for all manner of crime committed with complete disregard to the situation under which the crime was initially committed.

for instance..

two junkies -with rap sheets longer than my arm- one with a razor, the other an old bat, stopped and then persisted to rob me.

me.

Situation aside, I acted first as soon an opportunity presented itself, resulting in the first guy getting slashed across his face with his own razor -disfigured for life, and the other guy received the business end of the bat to the windpipe. That didn't go completely according to plan, since his neck was also broken by the impact -two week coma and paralyzed from the neck down, for life.


From what you guys are saying I should have been sentenced to the chair...

:nono:

Thats not what I was saying at all, you, from that scenario, were using self-defence and that in my book is a crime that should never be punished. If however those junkies managed to attack and/or kill you for no reason other than to rob you for their next fix or just for funzies then they most certainly deserve the chair. Except I would choose crucifiction as a punishment since it spreads a wider message

Here in the UK, it's the other way round. Prison time is no punishment, especially for young offenders. I used to work in a YOI, and if they behaved themselves, they were rewarded with TV and X-Boxes. I couldn't afford an X-Box on my salary there.

Back to the article though, diet is really important when it comes to behaviour. The prisoners I was associated with would eat nothing but junk (raised on diets of cola and crisps by their stupid parents) and would be dreadfully behaved and agitated. Stick them on a diet of resh vegetables and wholemeal bread and they calm down no end. Shame they wouldn't stick to it when they got out. Most of them go straight to MurkDonalds when they leave.

The message that you are a barbaric ruler and need to be tried for crimes against humanity. Seriously, some of the punishments you guys are advocating are absurdly cruel and overkill.

That would speak for any ruler who has ever been in charge when a criminal has been locked up in a cell.
Sticking him on a plank of wood forever - Inhumane.
Giving him the needle - Inhumane.
Giving him the chair - Inhumane.
Hanging him - Inhumane.
Locking him up in a 2x3m cell - Humane by your standards?

Was it humane that this criminal punished his victim with life long scars ?
Was it humane that this criminal punished his victim with death ?
Was it humane that this criminal punished his victim with [censored] ?

And you would have these monsters left to enjoy a cosy life in a cell, not ever serving the full sentence, wasting taxpayers money to fund their release and their security ?
I would have them suffer the same fate that they bestowed upon their victims, that is true justice, an-eye-for-an-eye.

Regardless of his crime, your opinions on prison sentences or any bias in the article what are the actual facts?

1. His lawsuit is that he eats to much soy, an unhealthy level.
2. The article states that there is ALWAYS another choice to soy.
3. If 85% of inmates eat soy. 15% DONT EAT ANY soy.

With the story as its basis would anyone like to make his claim in court or could anyone reasonably rule in his favour as a jury? Many of the post here are using opinions and not facts as their motivator and unless there is more information he has no legal grounds to stand on. As to how we improve our prison systems there is no easy fix and I cant offer an educated opinion and thats all it would be. An opinion on an internet forum where we dont even treat each other as we should a human but we can get all selfrighteous and out of shape over a man eating soy in prison.

No kidding, but it's propably just the "internet tough guy" phenomenon. Otherwise i may need to rethink the relationship between games and predisposition to violence :cold:

Stealing food is a misdemeanor crime in Florida, and would result in literally time served, at most, a couple of days in the holding tank. Social Services would send a social worker to assist the family in obtaining "food stamps " and other government subsidies for low income and disabled (meaning unable to hold employment due to health issues) families.


Secondly, the vicitm in a violent crime is not just as important as the criminal, he/she's actually MORE important, especially if he/she is a child. sixual offenders are NOT required to pay for the costs of [censored] services, or for other health related issues such as medications for sixually transmitted diseases, psychologists/psychiatrists, unplanned preganancies, or legal services. In fact, a man who raqes a woman and impregnates her has the right to supervised visits with his child should she choose to give birth or be unable to afford an abortion. He can refuse to allow the child to be adopted, although a judge can overrule his rights in the best intrests of the child.
Victims of sixual abuse have serious psychological issues that do not go away, and are vulnerable to further predation, suicide, and commiting other acts of self harm. They are more prone to suffer from substance and physical abuse. They tend to make less income than their counterparts who haven't been abused. They suffer from serious self-esteem issues, They often cannot afford expensive therapy and counseling sessions. Their rapist, however, will get three square meals a day, healthcare, and a roof over their head. Free of charge. Their rapists will have rights in prison, to be protected from others who wish to harm them. The victim is not guaranteed any of the same rights as their rapist. I know, I am a victim.

Capital sixual battery is a felony offense in Florida. It's violent, forcible [censored] that results in severe bodily injury and trauma.
The SOB probably eats a lot of soy because he's always getting his ass kicked and ends up in solitary confinement for his own protection. He's probably had nutraloaf on more than one occasion. Other inmates don't take kindly to pedos or pedarists.



As for chain gangs: In Florida, violent felons are not eligible for any outside excursions such as gardening, groundscare, or road crews. Contractors that build and maintain highways are allowed by the state to hire nonviolent prision inmates at minimum wage or below, to help build, clean, and maintain highways. The inmate is allowed to keep what income they earn in the prison banking system. The contractors also get a tax credit for providing employment to nonviolent offenders.

This was a tangent of the OP and is off topic...enough one it before mods come a hunting.


I have better things to do with my time on the internet than make up my own alter ego who takes control when I go on the internet. I have a cupboard full of dress and high heels to play out my fantasies :unsure:
But really though I view high level crimes like [censored] and murder as punishable by death, robbers should have a hand cut off for it (I believe some Arab countries practice this IDK which ones) and people that commit unprovoked assault and cause GBH should be punished as their victim sees fit an eye for an eye.

Quick to judge and condemn, slow to express how you'd deal with the manner I see.

The thing is, we've done all that. You're using examples of real-world crime/punishment standards. Civilization has done hanging and crucifixion before. There was still crime. In modern times, the death penalty has not been shown to be an effective deterrent. So it's not like a more vengeful response to crime would put an end to it. The reason why we have these huge prisons that "coddle" prisoners as some think (before complaining about the $47 million price tag, consider that the article also says that spreads out to $1.70 per day to feed prisoners. Try living on that and see how much you enjoy your food), is because of society as a whole trying to move away from the mindset of "I don't like this person, so it's okay to torture and kill them". It's the same line of thought that lands a lot of violent criminals in jail in the first place. Alternatively, for an example of how well "____ wronged me, so do as much or worse to them and it won't happen again" works, take a look at how smoothly the middle east operates.

If we put explosive collars or prisoners, what does that say about the civilized society then? Of course, I personally don't believe we're civil to begin with, just less barbaric than what we used to be.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/106/106604/10660429/jpg/active/960x.jpg

I have no answers, i'm just an anonymous poster on the internet. But civilisized nations do not allow "cruel and unusual punishments" that are being suggested here.

Which is untrue, and to reiterate:



^ 7th paragraph in the article.

Hard to feel bad for inmate. I wouldn't have an issue if soy was his only choice, but the fact that he's complaining about it despite this shows me he wants four or five star restaurant food for committing a crime, a serious crime at that, so his opinion on the food to me is rather moot, or anyone else in his position with the same complaint.

Indeed. Prisons in the west may as well be renamed "Criminal University" as they seem to excel in turning out better criminals.

That said I don't think this diet is cruel and unusual punishment on the face of it; but I'm intrigued that the prison system seems quite proud of the fact that 85% of prisoners choose to eat it - i'd consider a 15% refusal rate as a failure when it comes to providing basic food to a group of people who don't have a whole lot of other choices.



If your idea of 4 or 5 star food is meats other than chicken; then I think you need to eat out more as you've McDonalds burger flippers into the same league as the greatest chefs in the world.

How is it untrue? I don't have any personal knowledge on the food that goes into prisons, but soy is widely considered something that should be eaten moderately. If prisoners are getting more than the FDA deems healthy, I don't see how it's "untrue" that the food is, subsequently, unhealthy.

As for other choices, it says they have other protein choices. I doubt they have any other meat choices, which would explain why 85% of inmates don't take the other options, and the meat is what's being "watered down" to be 50% soy.

I should point out that cruel punishments are perfectly acceptable as long as they are not unusual.

Likewise, unusual punishments are perfectly acceptable as long as they are not cruel.

The beauty of ambiguity.

Not everyone can be won over with kindness it's just a sad fact of life. People deserve a chance however that chance goes out the window when people commit acts of barbarity that deserve a barbaric punishment. Only thing that disgusts me even more than their crimes against humanity are the lawyers trying to find reasons to get them off the hook. So far the standard response I see is technicality, mental issues, or they were abused as a child making their crimes "inexcusable" but they don't deserve to be punished.

Personally with some of these inmates I want to see the island bomb idea I mentioned or do medical experimentation on them. PETA says it's cruel to test stuff on animals I say fine lets test it on prisoner 7783519-A that unloaded an AK-47 on a place killing 10 people 3 of them children. We do need to reform prisons into what they are meant to be and that starts by streamlining the execution process plus separating dangerous inmates from the regulars.

Wow, this thread is rife with hyperbole.

First, he may have sued to the prison merely to have it switch its menu, not for money. The article doesn't specify.

Second, if the food is unhealthy, they shouldn't serve it. As another poster stated, healthier food = better behaved convicts, which is in everyone's interest. They spend around $1.50 a day, per prisoner, on food, which is less than the prison spends to feed the prison's guard dogs. (Statistic from "Sheriff" Joe Arpaio)

Third, what he was convicted of has nothing to do with his claim. Unrelated note: Most offenders like him pay for victim counseling and restitution.

Fourth, everyone advocating "eye-for-an-eye" nonsense seems to forget that there is a death penalty in most of the US, and other punishments that have been advocated like cutting off hands and crucifixion (really?), have been used in the past - yet there's still crime. There's no evidence that the death penalty actually deters crime. Time periods with the most draconian punishments like the Middle Ages also had some of the highest crime rates.

Fifth, for everyone who thinks prison is a ClubMed, haven't you seen "Lock Up," "Hard Time," or one of the 100s of other prison documentaries? Have you been to a prison? They aren't nice places. Go check one out. You can.

Sixth, and lastly, people are still arrested, daily, for stealing food. Foodstamps only cover selected foods, and people with a prior record can face years in jail for stealing meat. I personally saw a woman who was looking at a year in prison for taking three T-bone steaks.

Firstly, prisoners aren't forced or even given the option of a buffet. Secondly, they're given a choice of what they prefer of the choices given, "moderation" is in their own hands. If they don't happen to have every piece of the nutritional pyramid up to the standards of any given dietician maybe they should consider not committing crimes to get themselves in prison in the first place. Logically, with all the crap that happens in prison I doubt this should be their biggest concern anyways.

What's really hilarious about this is the cries of humane treatment while there's plenty of low income, working class non-criminal people who have trouble getting healthy food (it's costly), and we're worried about the poor prisoner not having the healthiest of choices? Awesome.

Prisons shouldn't be serving the healthiest food, they should be convincing people prison is a hellhole and to not commit the types of crimes that would send them to the type of prison in that article. Giving them the treatment as if they should have better access to healthy food than those outside of prison gives more incentive to stay there, despite a claim above, and is a slap in the face to those who don't commit these type of crimes, doubly, since it costs extra taxes on their part. I see quite a number of horrendously mixed up priorities in a number of posts, but not surprised.

There is a difference between serving food that isn't the healthiest, and one that could be having a quantifiable negative effect on inmate health.

Inmates can blame each other for other problems that go on in prison, but if better food means they have one less gripe with the guards/society, I'm for it.



As far as people who are advocating death for inmates who commit crimes, how simple it would be to find yourself a victim of circumstance and find yourself in their shoes. Maybe not for [censored], but embezzlement and any number of white-collar crimes are quite accessible, and potentially becoming more enticing with everything that's happening with the economies of the world.

I'm not "for it" especially when they have options low income non-criminal families don't have of eating healthy food for every meal. Their gripe is just with one particular type of food, of many other types of food served, that has soy in it. That's all. Cry me a river, prisoner. Prisons don't serve inmates crap on a stick. They're given more options than a number of others are.

Concerning these crimes committed, I'm pretty sure most of us who don't commit them can put ourselves in their shoes. The reason we can is.. we know what happens if we do, and thus we don't commit these crimes. Otherwise everyone would be doing it.

Relating the last sentence to the economic portion, prisons cost enough taxpayer funds, which do include taxes the non-crime committing poor take as a burden each time it increases. If it were a topic concerning how ridiculous some policies are that get people into any type of jail in the first place, I'm pretty sure I'll find myself more in agreement with the more bleeding heart crowd here over this issue. However, as far as food is concerned, which this topic is about, prisoners already are treated more than fairly, and truthfully, I would prefer even less taxes to go toward these type of meals, so cutting costs in just about any fiscally sensible way possible is a good idea to me. I'm far more concerned about the economic issues of prisons than a whiny prisoner is about the soy content of food he chooses to eat.

So, if you knew you wouldn't be caught, you'd murder/steal/abuse children?

Kidding. . .