lately, with all these cases of innocent people surfacing, it kind of casts doubt on the whole thing for me. Plus it bothers me no end, this disgusting attitude from prosecutors and judges - oh, the jury convicted them, so they are guilty no matter what new evidence arises - is unconscionable. If it becomes apparent someone is innocent, they should cut the red tape and release that person immediately. Not to do so is morally wrong.
But capitalism comes into it. These private for-profit prisons often have agreements in the communities where they locate that the justice system in the region will keep them at 80% or 90% capacity. This is a prime example of the profit motive not mixing with the public good. Because if you incarcerate someone, then your taxpayers become responsible for feeding, clothing, housing and taking medical care of the person. And that doesn't happen even in some of the local, state and federal prisons.
Problem is, about half of the people in the 'justice system' think the convicts are dirtbags and need to be punished for the rest of their lives, while the other half hold out hope for rehabilitation.
Lastly, I'll say this about myself: If I were convicted of a heinous crime that I actually committed - like some horrible thing, and it was worthy of the death penalty, I would rather have that than spend the rest of my life in a cage, which is horrible. A quick death seems much preferable (if I did it) than the alternative. And, if I'm to die I would like it to be in the most humane way possible - firing squad. Or guillotine. Lethal injection is horrible and cruel. Electrocution is horrible and cruel. Hanging is horrible and cruel.
Fast, no pain.
But, then, I may have a different view about death than you anyway. At 61 with health issues, my own feeling is that life is not always sacred - it is the quality of life that is sacred. Consider people in hospice. Some, who have family, are OK. But those who are alone and get one visit a week live in hell. In Colorado we have a law, thank God, that if you are terminally ill, you can opt to have your life ended legally. Not sure how that works, but the doctor has to sign off. And I think the person has to pull the trigger. Which is cool.
I mean, I think about my nineteen year old cat. I loved that cat. But his kidneys were failing, he had a heart murmur, and his arthritis got so bad one day he couldn't move his hind legs. We had one of those vets who come to your home put him down.
By contrast, my mother got severe COPD. We had a couple emergencies, then the doctor told us that lack of oxygen had permanently damaged her brain and she couldn't take care of herself. He diagnosed 'hospice.' Now, I had visions of a nice place with a little room, brightly lit and airy, with nice people who would take care of her until the end...
LOL. That costs $6 large a month. Nope. We had HOME HOSPICE, where we had to move her into our home and set her up in our dining room on a hospital bed. She suffered for months. Months. She never wanted to be a burden. She told me, "The sooner I die, the better," but she lived. We got one of those crib monitors, and I can remember eyes meeting with my ex as we listened to her labored breathing.
Later, after it was over, we talked and found that each of us had thought of going quietly down and turning off her oxygen, but neither of us did. Just didn't have the heart.
So who was better off? My cat or my mother? This is why I roll my eyes when someone in the medical community expresses idealistic pro-life sentiments to me. Bottom line, life is hard, and then when our time comes we die. Who is to say what happens then? And who can say if we don't come later for another time around the wheel?
= new reply since forum marked as read
