|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 15:42:32 GMT -6
inmates have rights, the most important of which is probably the right to due process. They have some rights, but not others. They have a right to due process, but not to free speech. They can't freely assemble, own firearms, vote or even read a newspaper (in some prisons). As such they are property. The state cannot do whatever it wants with its prisoners as it can (to a certain degree) with its property. Pretty much every aspect of their lives is controlled by the government. They are more property than anything else. it seems absurd to think of property as possessing rights, whereas it seems fascist for a state to deprive prisoners of all rights. So it does not seem accurate to classify inmates as property, and I have never heard a state official or regulation publicly refer to them as such. Animals have certain rights, too, but they're still property. It isn't murder if you kill one, and it's not murder if a CO kills an inmate. I know at least three people who did time in California prisons who can attest that they were told they were state property upon admission. They were given numbers and were always referred to, by correctional officers, by those numbers. Once you're a number, you're just property, Erick, like copy paper and staplers.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 15:54:56 GMT -6
inmates have rights, the most important of which is probably the right to due process. Pretty much every aspect of their lives is controlled by the government. They are more property than anything else. Animals have certain rights, too, but they're still property. It isn't murder if you kill one, and it's not murder if a CO kills an inmate. I know at least three people who did time in California prisons who can attest that they were told they were state property upon admission. They were given numbers and were always referred to, by correctional officers, by those numbers. Just because a CO tells them they are state property upon admission does not make it so. I would rather hear it from a state official or even codified in the law. You will never find such a thing. And as far as I know it is murder to kill an inmate (unless it is an emergency), even a DR inmate (aside from the execution itself). Can you point to one case or statute where it was held that it is not murder for a CO to randomly off an inmate? I don't believe that is true in any state, even where enforcement might be lax. And as far as numbers go, we are all given numbers. It does not make them property simply because some aspects of their punishment are dehumanizing.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 16:02:57 GMT -6
inmates have rights, the most important of which is probably the right to due process. They have some rights, but not others. They have a right to due process, but not to free speech. They can't freely assemble, own firearms, vote or even read a newspaper (in some prisons). As such they are property. Pretty much every aspect of their lives is controlled by the government. They are more property than anything else. it seems absurd to think of property as possessing rights, whereas it seems fascist for a state to deprive prisoners of all rights. So it does not seem accurate to classify inmates as property, and I have never heard a state official or regulation publicly refer to them as such. Animals have certain rights, too, but they're still property. The notion of animal rights is far from settled. Yes, pretty much all states have laws against animal cruelty, but to speak in terms of animal rights seems to be a fiction. On any account, animals themselves cannot invoke those right against their masters. Although inmates might be stripped of many rights, there are certain rights that they cannot be prevented from invoking.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 16:24:09 GMT -6
Just because a CO tells them they are state property upon admission does not make it so. You and I can argue about the precise meaning of "property," but it is clearly understood to California inmates. Whatever rights they have are mostly theoretical. The prisons tell them what to do morning, noon and night and lockdowns are frequent. And as far as I know it is murder to kill an inmate (unless it is an emergency), even a DR inmate (aside from the execution itself). Can you point to one case or statute where it was held that it is not murder for a CO to randomly off an inmate? No, but inmates have been killed and no correctional officer has ever been tried for murder, to my knowledge. Killings of inmates inside prison are tolerated, if not encouraged. They're very bad places for any inmate to be. as far as numbers go, we are all given numbers. It does not make them property simply because some aspects of their punishment are dehumanizing. You're so cute, Erick. Really. Whether or not they are legally defined as property, your average dog at a county shelter is treated with far more deference, and is held to have more rights, than the average state prison inmate. That is true, whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 16:40:24 GMT -6
Joe, I am not concerned about whether inmates think of themselves as property. I am concerned about whether the law in any American jurisdiction classifies them as such. An inmate's own understanding about his metaphysical status has no implication on whether he is property under the law. And the fact that the government controls the lives of inmates has no bearing on the matter. Indeed, the government could not force an inmate to work a dangerous job, as it probably could if inmates were mere property akin to livestock. I mean, if inmates were just property, we could slaughter them all at will. Now I'm not sure what you mean by saying "your so cute," but what I am concerned with is the law. As I said, I don't care how the inmates perceive themselves. Moreover, inmates certainly have more legal rights than a dog in a shelter. After all, you can't euthanize inmates when it becomes impractical to keep them alive and care for them, and I have yet to hear of an impounded dog filing for habeas corpus relief.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 16:49:42 GMT -6
You're so cute, Erick. Really. Whether or not they are legally defined as property, your average dog at a county shelter is treated with far more deference, and is held to have more rights, than the average state prison inmate. That is true, whether you like it or not. Joe, this thread is about harvesting the organs of executees. You suggested that such a practice is justifiable partly because inmates are state property. I am telling you that such an argument would fail to withstand legal scrutiny in any American jurisdiction. And that is true, whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 17:05:48 GMT -6
I am concerned about whether the law in any American jurisdiction classifies them as such. Does that make any difference to how inmates are treated? A law is only as good as its enforcement. Does the enforcement of existing law successfully prohibit inmates from being treated like property, in every sense of the word? An inmate's own understanding about his metaphysical status has no implication on whether he is property under the law. Again, there's the de facto status of inmates, and the de jure status of inmates. I am telling you one is different than the other. And the fact that the government controls the lives of inmates has no bearing on the matter. Indeed, the government could not force an inmate to work a dangerous job, as it probably could if inmates were mere property akin to livestock. Actually inmates would volunteer for dangerous work. That they would, and do (as my wife did), tells you something about their treatment. I mean, if inmates were just property, we could slaughter them all at will. We don't slaughter all animals at will, either, but we slaughter some, just as we slaughter some of our inmates. At least pound animals aren't constantly reminded that (a) we intend to kill them and (b) we look forward to it. Now I'm not sure what you mean by saying "your so cute," but what I am concerned with is the law. I find your romanticism of prisons quaint. inmates certainly have more legal rights than a dog in a shelter. Do they? Pound animals are entitled to unlimited visitation. Inmates are not. Pound animals are segregated from each other, to prevent them from killing each other. Inmates are not. Pound animals are released from custody as soon as people want to adopt them. Inmates are not. Whatever "rights" are enjoyed by inmates are academic. For all practical purposes, they're considered property by everyone but their lawyers -- and only a few inmates have those.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 17:21:13 GMT -6
Joe, this thread is about harvesting the organs of executees. You suggested that such a practice is justifiable partly because inmates are state property. I am telling you that such an argument would fail to withstand legal scrutiny in any American jurisdiction. True maybe but fungible. The dead do not have constitutional rights.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 17:23:54 GMT -6
Whatever "rights" are enjoyed by inmates are academic. For all practical purposes, they're considered property by everyone but their lawyers -- and only a few inmates have those. Joe, classifying inmates as property would have all sorts of legal implications. For example, you used such an argument to justify (at least partially) organ harvesting. Although how they are classified may not seem relevant to the inmates, such classification does have extremely practical legal implications. For instance, if an inmate were property, could not a CO "put an inmate down" if an inmate breaks a leg? But I love how you find my understanding of prisons to be "quaint." I have never been in state prison, but I did do a stint in county years ago. I also have a lot of friends who went to prison or are in prison (most of them for drugs). I know how inmates are treated and why they might think they are treated as property. But their lives would be a lot worse if the courts agreed with them.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 6, 2009 17:33:36 GMT -6
classifying inmates as property would have all sorts of legal implications. For example, you used such an argument to justify (at least partially) organ harvesting. OK. Why is that wrong? Although how they are classified may not seem relevant to the inmates, such classification does have extremely practical legal implications. For instance, if an inmate were property, could not a CO "put an inmate down" if an inmate breaks a leg? No, but the legislature could decide what medical procedures the state will pay for. The rest would have to come from donations. Think organ transplants here. People die on hospitals for want of donor organs, but inmates get them for free. Why is that right? If it takes a declaration in law that inmates are property, to reverse that noxious policy, so be it. I love how you find my understanding of prisons to be "quaint." I have never been in state prison, but I did do a stint in county years ago. I also have a lot of friends who went to prison or are in prison (most of them for drugs). I know how inmates are treated and why they might think they are treated as property. But their lives would be a lot worse if the courts agreed with them. I am not convinced making their lives worse is bad.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Mar 6, 2009 17:42:57 GMT -6
If Death Row inmate´s were hanged then the organs were not damaged. So many people need new organs so bad and they can live with new organs but often have to die because there are not enough donored organs. So is Lethal Injection not wrong when many lifes were rescued if Death Row inmates were hanged? It is very sad that the organs are destroyed when so many good people wait for donatons. Two kidnes, one heart, two lungs and much more.What do the other members think? There are a great many things that this does not take in to consideration, for one the vast majority of those on DR have been heavy users of drugs for years and so not good for Organ Donations to begin with. Second they would have to be volunteers to Organ Donation or it would be ethically unacceptable. Third it would bring in to question the real reason for their execution, which is a punishment for a crime. Not to mention the obesity common on death row. It tends to make organs like the heart useless for donation.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Mar 6, 2009 17:50:43 GMT -6
classifying inmates as property would have all sorts of legal implications. For example, you used such an argument to justify (at least partially) organ harvesting. OK. Why is that wrong? No, but the legislature could decide what medical procedures the state will pay for. The rest would have to come from donations. Think organ transplants here. People die on hospitals for want of donor organs, but inmates get them for free. Why is that right? If it takes a declaration in law that inmates are property, to reverse that noxious policy, so be it. I love how you find my understanding of prisons to be "quaint." I have never been in state prison, but I did do a stint in county years ago. I also have a lot of friends who went to prison or are in prison (most of them for drugs). I know how inmates are treated and why they might think they are treated as property. But their lives would be a lot worse if the courts agreed with them. I am not convinced making their lives worse is bad. Dude, I am 100% cool with harvesting organs from DR inmates (aside from medical concerns of course). I am also not saying that an inmate should be entitled to better medical treatment that free citizens have a right to. All I am saying is that I think you lose when you premise an argument on the idea that inmates are state property.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Mar 6, 2009 18:04:07 GMT -6
It's been done. There's nothing new under the sun. Most do have interesting tattoos, though. Don't forget lampshades. I know, Cali. Wasn't it the guy depicted in "Schindler's List" who did this sick stuff, using the skin of murdered concentration camp inmates as lampshades?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 6, 2009 18:10:24 GMT -6
Thank you for your candor. Hey Sdl, I think it was courageous to to tell us that. Why?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Mar 6, 2009 18:13:23 GMT -6
I know you don't...but somebody does. SDL, I wasn't trying to make a cheap joke here, really. I came across this thread by FraWor about harvesting organs of executed convicts and remembered one of his previous posts in which he asked why the US didn't use "mass gas chambers". That's why I wrote this sarcastic comment. This guy has some strange ideas if you take into consideration that he, as well as me, is from Germany and should know what memories his proposals will bring up. That's what I wanted to point out. I definitely didn't want to make a joke on the expense of your father. I should have thought twice before posting that since I know that there are people on this board who descent from Holocaust survivors and am honestly sorry if I hurt your and other people's feelings. I simply wanted to express that if we see people - and even murderers - as cattle or things we're not far from Nazism anymore. I'm really sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 6, 2009 18:21:26 GMT -6
Whatever "rights" are enjoyed by inmates are academic. For all practical purposes, they're considered property by everyone but their lawyers -- and only a few inmates have those. Joe, classifying inmates as property would have all sorts of legal implications. For example, you used such an argument to justify (at least partially) organ harvesting. Although how they are classified may not seem relevant to the inmates, such classification does have extremely practical legal implications. For instance, if an inmate were property, could not a CO "put an inmate down" if an inmate breaks a leg? But I love how you find my understanding of prisons to be "quaint." I have never been in state prison, but I did do a stint in county years ago. I also have a lot of friends who went to prison or are in prison (most of them for drugs). I know how inmates are treated and why they might think they are treated as property. But their lives would be a lot worse if the courts agreed with them. Well said, Erick. As occasionally happens, Joe has more stuffing than a Christmas turkey in this thread so far. Joe, making crazy-ass assertions as statements of fact does not make you right; it makes you look like a wild-eyed fool, i.e., the mirror image of SDL. For God's sake, do some legal research to try to back up your inane blathering, which will reveal to you how wrong you are, or better yet, just shut up.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 6, 2009 22:07:11 GMT -6
Joe, this thread is about harvesting the organs of executees. You suggested that such a practice is justifiable partly because inmates are state property. I am telling you that such an argument would fail to withstand legal scrutiny in any American jurisdiction. True maybe but fungible. The dead do not have constitutional rights. Not true. The rights of the dead are covered by wills, etc.. Even somebody on dr would have a right to file one.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 6, 2009 22:30:47 GMT -6
Not true. The rights of the dead are covered by wills, etc.. Even somebody on dr would have a right to file one. There is no Probate Code in the Democratic Republic of Phillipstan.
|
|
|
Post by Royd on Mar 7, 2009 6:36:48 GMT -6
Harvesting to order, now theres a grim idea that won't work.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 7, 2009 8:11:03 GMT -6
If Death Row inmate´s were hanged then the organs were not damaged. So many people need new organs so bad and they can live with new organs but often have to die because there are not enough donored organs. So is Lethal Injection not wrong when many lifes were rescued if Death Row inmates were hanged? It is very sad that the organs are destroyed when so many good people wait for donatons. Two kidnes, one heart, two lungs and much more.What do the other members think? There are a great many things that this does not take in to consideration, for one the vast majority of those on DR have been heavy users of drugs for years and so not good for Organ Donations to begin with. Second they would have to be volunteers to Organ Donation or it would be ethically unacceptable. Third it would bring in to question the real reason for their execution, which is a punishment for a crime. what would be unethical about it? there's no rational reason why the murderer should have any say in it. it used to be a common sentence in england that the executed criminal be dissected and anatomized. now that we have the ability to transplant the organs after anatomization, why shouldn't we?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 7, 2009 8:41:57 GMT -6
what would be unethical about it? Take it up with the physicians. They consider it unethical and won't do it. I can't say I disagree; physicians are supposed to fight death, not facilitate it. And Phillips' idea that non-physicans could remove the organs is idiotic. Organ removal is surgery, not a butcher's job. And then there's the fact that the organs are not viable after an execution, whatever the method. In LI, they are suffused with massive drug overdoses. Electrocution is obvious. For a prisoner who is hanged, they dangle for 20 minutes or longer before being pronounced. Oxygen starvation has, by that time, again rendered any tissue useless. I'm afraid there is. Each state in the U.S. has a Probate Code. From the moment a person is pronounced dead, the administrator or executor of his or her estate has complete authority over disposition of the remains. Absent a statutory order, an autopsy can't even be performed without permission. In conclusion, crapazoid proposals like the one that started this thread not only show great ignorance, they do great damage to our cause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 8:56:51 GMT -6
what would be unethical about it? Take it up with the physicians. They consider it unethical and won't do it. I can't say I disagree; physicians are supposed to fight death, not facilitate it. And Phillips' idea that non-physicans could remove the organs is idiotic. Organ removal is surgery, not a butcher's job. And then there's the fact that the organs are not viable after an execution, whatever the method. In LI, they are suffused with massive drug overdoses. Electrocution is obvious. For a prisoner who is hanged, they dangle for 20 minutes or longer before being pronounced. Oxygen starvation has, by that time, again rendered any tissue useless. I'm afraid there is. Each state in the U.S. has a Probate Code. From the moment a person is pronounced dead, the administrator or executor of his or her estate has complete authority over disposition of the remains. Absent a statutory order, an autopsy can't even be performed without permission. In conclusion, crapazoid proposals like the one that started this thread not only show great ignorance, they do great damage to our cause. Excellent post, I agree 100%. And I am one who actually has experience concerning this matter. I wish I didn't. But you are correct in all you say here. Organ removal is done just as carefully as any surgery, by surgeons, with life support running until all of the organs that will be harvested have been removed - to preserve and prolong the tissue life as much as possible - for the highest chance of success possible for the recipient. And in TX it was entirely up to her biological father, her sister and I - the next of kin - if organ donation could be done. We all 3 had to sign consent. Thank you Cali
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 7, 2009 11:21:10 GMT -6
While DR inmates have no ethics, we should. And this, although used in another context here, is the perfect line for an anti. DR inmates have not ethics and killed. We should have ethics and don't do the same. We do have ethics that is why we give them a trial and many appeals before we legally execute them. It would be unethical not to in most cases, but that is my opinion and ethics are a personal thing.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 7, 2009 11:24:38 GMT -6
I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts, Joseph. The ethics of harvesting organs from dead inmates is a matter of opinion. That inmates are the physical property of the state isn't. Wrong once again once they have been executed they have completed their sentence, they no longer owe the state anything. This is no different than an inmate who was sentenced to 10 years and completed those 10 years he is no longer a ward of the state and owes no more time or anything else including parole.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 7, 2009 11:27:41 GMT -6
Animals have certain rights, too, but they're still property. It isn't murder if you kill one, and it's not murder if a CO kills an inmate. Wrong again Joe if an officer kills an inmate outside the line of duty he/she can and will be held accountable for murder.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 7, 2009 12:44:36 GMT -6
The ethics of harvesting organs from dead inmates is a matter of opinion. That inmates are the physical property of the state isn't. Inmates are not "the property of the state." They're in the custody of the state. There's a difference, which apparently eludes many in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Mar 7, 2009 12:53:47 GMT -6
The ethics of harvesting organs from dead inmates is a matter of opinion. That inmates are the physical property of the state isn't. Inmates are not "the property of the state." They're in the custody of the state. There's a difference, which apparently eludes many in this thread. I do not think I ever said they were, however they are wards of the state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2009 6:43:08 GMT -6
If Death Row inmate´s were hanged then the organs were not damaged. So many people need new organs so bad and they can live with new organs but often have to die because there are not enough donored organs. So is Lethal Injection not wrong when many lifes were rescued if Death Row inmates were hanged? It is very sad that the organs are destroyed when so many good people wait for donatons. Two kidnes, one heart, two lungs and much more.What do the other members think? Yeah, we could make felt slippers from their hair as well or lampshades from their skin. I have no problem with this.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 8, 2009 6:53:03 GMT -6
I think there is a fundamental problem with harvesting organs from an deceased person. So far on this thread I have seen the post by JBS that confirms what I am thinking; the doctors maintain the patient on life support until the harvest is complete. This probably conflicts with putting someone to death as a penalty for a crime and therefore precludes the harvesting of their organs.
Not sure, just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Mar 8, 2009 6:57:09 GMT -6
I have no problem with this. Why am I not surprised...
|
|