Quote from: red. on May 30, 2006, 06:09:39 AMToo small means likely to suffer extrajudicial killing/maiming etc. The State should provide safe prison environment, and, failing that, the proper thing to do is to seek a solution outside of prison.i concede the point, but given that sex offenders are more likely to be murdered in prison in general, maybe we should just have a separate facility for them altogether.
Too small means likely to suffer extrajudicial killing/maiming etc. The State should provide safe prison environment, and, failing that, the proper thing to do is to seek a solution outside of prison.
Quote from: Miss P on June 01, 2006, 06:03:49 PMI really can't understand why we tolerate this. because the people who are in prison are usually those considered marginal to society.i mean, you knew that, but i felt like playing captain obvious for a bit.i will now return the role to red.
I really can't understand why we tolerate this.
If it is as bad as people say it is in prison for sex offenders, it may actually be preferable for a sex offender likely to be too weak to survive prison to kill his victim to get the more humane state-administered death penalty. Wouldn't want to create this incentive, but I really don't know how valid the initial assumption is.
i have a question. if I am a 6'8" killing machine capable of quickly ending someone's life with my bare hands, would I be found to be too dangerous for prison by this judge? not saying that I am, but it seems to follow the same logic, doesn't it? Edit: Let's also say that it is well known that I hate child molesters
There is a constitutional basis for protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" (like getting sodimized against your will). Sending someone to jail could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, ergo, find an alternate method to prevent him from harming others and exacting punishment.There is no basis for setting someone free because they might create a cruel and unusual environment for others. That is the reason we lock them up.