Should inmates on death row be allowed to choose what their last meal is?

Robbo · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:39

Texas jails abolish last meals after uneaten banquet

Prison officials in the US state of Texas have abolished the traditional last meal request for inmates who are facing execution.

The move came after a prisoner requested a huge meal then did not eat any of it, saying he was not hungry.

Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed on Wednesday for the notorious hate-crime killing of James Byrd Jr in 1998.

The abolition followed a complaint by Texan Senator John Whitmire, who called the meal privilege "inappropriate".

Senator Whitmire, a Democrat and chairman of the state Senate Criminal Justice Committee, threatened to introduce legislation if the last meal offer was not withdrawn.

"Enough is enough," he said. "It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege. It's a privilege which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim."

Brad Livingston, executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, replied within hours, saying the tradition would be abolished.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15034970

I think this just about sums up why this is a good thing -

"Enough is enough," he said. "It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege. It's a privilege which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim."

I've always thought the whole 'last meal' thing is a bit of a farce anyway. People on death row shouldn't get any special treatment just because they are going to die.

yoyo50 · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:40

Pot Noodle TBH

Moeks · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:40

No, why even give them a last meal? ...waste of food.

And why keep them hanging around for 30 years while threatening to kill them one day, either do it or don't. There should be some sort of a time frame that a death sentence should be carried out in I think.

marc2003 · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:43

It's a privilege which the perpetrator did not provide to their victim.

that might not be true for every case.

Edrof · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:44

Moeks said:
No, why even give them a last meal? ...waste of food.

And why keep them hanging around for 30 years while threatening to kill them one day, either do it or don't. There should be some sort of a time frame that a death sentence should be carried out in I think.

But then the lawyers would only be able to afford BMWs rather than Mercs. Won't someone think of the lawyers?

Cosimo · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:48

marc2003 said:
that might not be true for every case.

.... and where there is doubt, feed them the last meal.

Derek W · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:48

whatever they give them, it'll be barbequed

Castiel · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:48

There should not be a Death Row to begin with, barbaric and pointless practice that belongs in the past.

Cosimo · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:49

Derek W said:
whatever they give them, it'll be barbequed

Not if they give them a last poo.

Tyrone77 · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:52

I personally wouldn't want to be part of a society that took the opinion an 'eye for an eye'. Just because someone acts inhuman, it doesn't mean society has to follow suit.

Personally think a life is a big thing to take from any human being and if providing a last meal is a final act, a symbol, to show that the proceedings is showing some form of compassion (no matter how small) then so be it.

It's not as if it's going to add much more to the overall bill of holding that person for 8+ years on death row...

semi-pro waster · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:53

I thought there was a policy limit of something like $15 or $20 on the last meal anyway, if you can get a banquet for that then presumably we're all eating at the wrong places. Ah, it turns out that it's only in specific states that do that - in which case why not adopt the cost limitation approach rather than banning it for everyone. It's a rather daft approach to restrict things because of a minority abusing the privilege.

I don't see there being any particular harm in allowing condemned prisoners a last meal of their choice if it is reasonable, while I don't agree with the death penalty as a matter of principle this privilege is a fairly small issue to make it marginally more humane.

Vonhelmet · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:55

I have no issue with giving them a last meal. I take every issue with the death penalty.

spudbynight · 23 Sep 2011 at 16:59

Castiel said:
There should not be a Death Row to begin with, barbaric and pointless practice that belongs in the past.

Yes, no excuse for capital punishment whatsoever.

Moeks · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:00

Although the issue of the death penalty is a different discussion to this one, I will say that generally I am not in favour of it, it just seems rather barbaric to me.

However, consider this, if you do not have a death penalty then those people that do take lives, murdurers and killers become the ultimate arbiters of life and death. When they decide who lives and who dies based up to their whims and desires ...I think it's a problem.

I find it much more difficult to argue against the death penalty in a reasoned and cogent manner than I do for it, yet I still don't like it. It is more of a gut thing though ...I just feel it's ..well ...barbaric really.

shoes · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:03

No problem with the death penalty, they should be given a last meal of something pretty uncomfortable IMO. Knuckle sandwich perhaps?

RomanNose · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:15

shoes said:
No problem with the death penalty, they should be given a last meal of something pretty uncomfortable IMO. Knuckle sandwich perhaps?

A lot is wrong with the death penalty, it's cruel and not needed in a modern society and has not even been shown to be a good deterrent. There have been many cases of innocent men who have been killed by this barbaric punishment.

PMKeates · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:19

I think they should be allowed a meal. After all, we are about to execute them; the least we can do is spend a tiny fraction of what it's cost to get them to that point in order to afford them some final humanity.

RoyMi6 · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:20

My biggest problem with death penalty is that there is a "death row".

If you've decided to put them to death then have them taken out of the court room and shot. Job done.

Saying that, I'm not pro death penalty.

arknor · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:27

Castiel said:
There should not be a Death Row to begin with, barbaric and pointless practice that belongs in the past.

i can think of a few deserving people some which are still in uk prisons that will never be released and have wasted tax payers money for decades

shoes · 23 Sep 2011 at 17:29

chaosdestro0 said:
A lot is wrong with the death penalty, it's cruel and not needed in a modern society and has not even been shown to be a good deterrent. There have been many cases of innocent men who have been killed by this barbaric punishment.

I am not pro it for the deterrent aspect tbh, I just think that in cases with indisputable evidence (please no on link me to the recent story of a potentially innocent man being put to death I disagree with that entirely - I'm talking about cases where, for example, there is video of you on your PC hanging out the back of a child) it would save us a lot of money and effort keeping them alive. Again no doubt someone will quote me some irrelevant figures about how much more it costs, so see above - clean cut cases only people. no appeal, no argument, just shoot them.

Aside from the few cases where it's justified IMO, then no we shouldn't have a death row. But for 'lifers' it really should mean life, and they should forfeit their human rights too, but that'll never happen :rolleyes: