Welcome to Gaia! ::

Omnileech's avatar

Omnipresent Warlord

There's been some debate about the cost of the death penalty in my state with both pro and con sides arguing over what the cost is. From what the state is mandated to do and how they are required to do it, the death penalty is more expensive than simply locking someone in prison until they die. That's not what this thread is about.

This thread is about what you men and women think about how far the state should be willing to go to save a life of an inmate.

Let's say that Inmate A has had death sentence changed to life in prison without the possibility of parole and soon after it is discovered that he has cancer and needs to see a specialist about it. Should the state go through sending the man to a doctor or should inmate A be denied all access to a specialist for so much as a consultation because of the futility of it all? Would that be tantamount to a death sentence, to deny lifesavings measures?

Let's say Inmate B is nearly identical to inmate A except although a killer, he gets out in 25 years. 5 years into his sentence he gets cancer and needs to see a doctor, needs an operations, chemo, etc. Should he be obligated to medical care no matter how costly? Does the fact he will be a free man change anything?

And what of lesser medical expenses? If someone's eyesight deteriorates do they get glasses? If they lose their hearing do they get a hearing aid? If they lose the ability to walk, feed themselves, need pills for a condition, etc. should they get what a non-convict would get? Or should they be treated differently?
Omnileech
Let's say that Inmate A has had death sentence changed to life in prison without the possibility of parole and soon after it is discovered that he has cancer and needs to see a specialist about it. Should the state go through sending the man to a doctor or should inmate A be denied all access to a specialist for so much as a consultation because of the futility of it all? Would that be tantamount to a death sentence, to deny lifesavings measures?


Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.

Quote:
Let's say Inmate B is nearly identical to inmate A except although a killer, he gets out in 25 years. 5 years into his sentence he gets cancer and needs to see a doctor, needs an operations, chemo, etc. Should he be obligated to medical care no matter how costly? Does the fact he will be a free man change anything?


It changes nothing. Life threatening medical expenses should be a given. Although, if he is capable of affording it himself, I don't particularly mind if he pays for all or part of it. Same goes for inmate A.

Quote:
And what of lesser medical expenses? If someone's eyesight deteriorates do they get glasses? If they lose their hearing do they get a hearing aid? If they lose the ability to walk, feed themselves, need pills for a condition, etc. should they get what a non-convict would get? Or should they be treated differently?


The key here should be what the inmate can afford, is willing to receive, and what is necessary to their humane treatment and quality of life. A prisoner has already lost most of their freedoms. Everything from the obvious, freedom of movement, to the less obvious, their political right to vote, etc. The government benefits from this. They no longer answer to this voter in election times, can now assign them labour and living conditions that they desire, etc. It is absolutely incumbent on them to ensure that these people are able to be cared for while in this situation.
Heimdalr's avatar

Mega Noob

Curse summed it up perfectly, I think. Prisons are total institutions; inmates no longer have autonomy and are wholly dependent subjects of the State. To not give inmates suffering from disease adequate treatment while inside I would deem cruel and unusual. Their life expectancy is low as it is, a sentence of 20 years take 16 off your life expectancy on average.
Omnileech's avatar

Omnipresent Warlord

The Curse
Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.


There's an irony there in that a prisoner who needs an organ transplant to live might get one while a free man may not be able to afford it.
Poyudi Hytori's avatar

Moonlight Hunter

14,450 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Battle: Level 10 250
  • Nudist Colony 200
He Has Fought Too Many Battles To Count....


Theres another point to be made here I think. Often times the poor or the homeless have to go with out food, much less any medical care. Crimal are locked away because we don't trust them to be apart of our society. And yet they get treated better then some people who follow the laws, who live as apart of our society.

The funds used to take care of criminals could instead be spent on schools, hospitals, and homeless shelters. Which not only helps everyone in out society, but also goes a long way to prevent people from breaking the laws in the first place.

Tell people that you'll feed them, clothe them, take care of their health, and even let them have a lawer for free. And often the reaction will be "Who do I have to kill?" When the state answers back "Anybody!" is it a wonder that we have so many people in prison? :/


....The Souless Angel Fights On, Forever More.
Disa Uniflora's avatar

Perfect Hunter

9,450 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Brandisher 100
Omnileech
The Curse
Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.


There's an irony there in that a prisoner who needs an organ transplant to live might get one while a free man may not be able to afford it.

I would respond that the problem proposed here lies not with the inmate being able to receive life-saving organ implants but with the same organ being denied to the free man due to cost, since any persistent occurrence of this would be indicative of either deep poverty or a failure in the healthcare system.
Omnileech
The Curse
Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.


There's an irony there in that a prisoner who needs an organ transplant to live might get one while a free man may not be able to afford it.


Indeed there is. Though I personally would also advocate for a certain degree of public healtchare.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

4,650 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
Omnileech
The Curse
Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.


There's an irony there in that a prisoner who needs an organ transplant to live might get one while a free man may not be able to afford it.


Transplant lists, and the people on them, have a handicap system.

To even get approved for a list, you undergo psychological evaluation to insure that you're not a suicide risk, accidental death risk, so on and so forth. They've got actuary tables and all sorts of s**t, just like insurance providers.

Things like being young, being otherwise healthy but for the afflicted organ, being mentally healthy, etc, bump you up into a better position on the list.

Being old, having other health problems that decrease your survivability rate, being mentally unstable, all of these put you lower on the list.

I imagine, but do not know, that prisoners get a special little -1 on their charts or something. Not only are they in prison for whatever, they have lower survivability over any given time frame, whether from violence or self-inflicted harm.

This is all just how it works in theory and on paper. I'm certain occasions have arisen when a prisoner may have received an organ over another citizen. But I imagine there were likely a great numbers of factors unknowable from our vantage point that led to that outcome.

Or it was sheer, stupid luck.

Also, as far as affording transplant procedures, I don't know about every type of organ, but most transplants involving chronic, incurable diseases are covered under Medicare 100% regardless of age, granted you are approved by the governing medical authorities.
MisdreavusPrincess's avatar

Timid Vampire

9,750 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Invisibility 100
  • Streaker 200
Omnileech
The Curse
Yes he should recieve those operations. The state shouldn't have the capacity to kill the citizens to whom it is responsible. If it must remove them from society, it takes on an extra duty of care. It should consider the costs of incarceration, including life threatening medical expenses, in considering whether or not it is worth it to incarcerate a citizen, thereby removing multiple freedoms from them.


There's an irony there in that a prisoner who needs an organ transplant to live might get one while a free man may not be able to afford it.


That could be fixed if we simply had universal health care.

Yes, everyone in prison should have a right to medical treatment. No matter how costly or inconvenient to the state.

Whether's inmate A or B, both are still human.

However, medical treatment should not be exclusive only for prisoners.

Everyone has a right to healthcare and treatment. I'm a strong believer in universal healthcare, and if we just implemented that system a lot more lives would be saved.
if a guy kills 5 people and eats them. Let the SOB be dead. If the guy stole a candy bar and has 3 months in jail fine. it's like that guy that has life but wants a sex change sucks to be him and should not be put on the tax pays backs to pay for.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games