Omnileech
(?)Community Member
- Posted: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:54:26 +0000
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?
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?