Conquer Club

Seriously, though... the U.S. prisons are so overcrowded... and underfunded. This would cut food costs dramatically, therefore solving both parts of the problem. Furthermore, it would enhance the "disincentive" effect.

I'm not saying we actively commit the death penalty to feed our prisoners; rather, we stop feeding them, provide them with the necessary tools, and allow nature to take its course.

So would this lower the crime rate? Does it make economical sense?

Ditocoaf wrote:Seriously, though... the U.S. prisons are so overcrowded... and underfunded. This would cut food costs dramatically, therefore solving both parts of the problem. Furthermore, it would enhance the "disincentive" effect.

I'm not saying we actively commit the death penalty to feed our prisoners; rather, we stop feeding them, provide them with the necessary tools, and allow nature to take its course.

So would this lower the crime rate? Does it make economical sense?

What about the crime rates in prison? And I bet the Bloods and Crips are going to go to the national news about it as well.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:Seriously, though... the U.S. prisons are so overcrowded... and underfunded. This would cut food costs dramatically, therefore solving both parts of the problem. Furthermore, it would enhance the "disincentive" effect.

I'm not saying we actively commit the death penalty to feed our prisoners; rather, we stop feeding them, provide them with the necessary tools, and allow nature to take its course.

So would this lower the crime rate? Does it make economical sense?

What about the crime rates in prison? And I bet the Bloods and Crips are going to go to the national news about it as well.

if all of the criminals eat eachother, the number of crimes in prison would eventually go down as well.

Especially if we stop considering cannibalism a crime in prison.

I agree

Another solution would be to simply round them all up and shoot them. No more crime in prison, and it's much more cost-efficient than legal injection.

I have an Idea too. And it only takes 5 steps.........

1) Don't let the private companies that control the prisons, write the laws that put people in the prisons.

2) Don't let said private companies let the American taxpayer pay for all of the care/welfare for an inmate, while the companies profit from said inmate labor. That's one of the "unconstitutional" things that you've heard about.

3) Don't let the prison parole boards choose which inmates to let out. These parole boards are chosen by said private companies. They will let out violent repeat offenders. This will make you and I beg for tougher laws. And who writes these laws?

4) Disband the CIA. They control 80% of the worlds herione and nearly 90% of its Opiates(Afgahnistan). And who really knows how much of the worlds Cocaine?

5) Everyone smokes marijuana. Even presidents. What is the point? And yes, this is a serious step.

Besides, I don't like the idea Cannibalizing Criminals. Then we would have the biggest strongest criminals getting out of prison, with a taste for human flesh.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Besides, I don't like the idea Cannibalizing Criminals. Then we would have the biggest strongest criminals getting out of prison, with a taste for human flesh.

No, they'd either have ebola or be digested.

InkL0sed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Besides, I don't like the idea Cannibalizing Criminals. Then we would have the biggest strongest criminals getting out of prison, with a taste for human flesh.

No, they'd either have ebola or be digested.

I read somewhere that the only way you can catch (as opposed to inherit) sickle-cell anemia is by cannibalism.

jonesthecurl wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Besides, I don't like the idea Cannibalizing Criminals. Then we would have the biggest strongest criminals getting out of prison, with a taste for human flesh.

No, they'd either have ebola or be digested.

I read somewhere that the only way you can catch (as opposed to inherit) sickle-cell anemia is by cannibalism.

lol. That's not funny.............lol.

Are you saying that some Africans say that they inherited it, but really they are cannibals?.....

What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

[quote="Juan_Bottom"Are you saying that some Africans say that they inherited it, but really they are cannibals?.....[/quote]I'm sure that the figures are tolerably small...

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

You've seen the light!

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The punishment doesn't always fit the crime. If you don't believe its true, check out California's three strike law. Twenty years for writing a bad check above the amount of three hundred dollars? Get real....

Maybe we could adjust this idea to only cover certain types of prison. Like medium security and above?

Ditocoaf wrote:

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

Yeah, next time you pick up a joint, think about your odds against 1,000 battle-hardened cannibals.
Or, for the same feeling, you could just walk into a Hollywood talent agency! Ha! Ha!

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The punishment doesn't always fit the crime. If you don't believe its true, check out California's three strike law. Twenty years for writing a bad check above the amount of three hundred dollars? Get real....

Maybe we could adjust this idea to only cover certain types of prison. Like medium security and above?

What, you're saying that people who write bad checks don't deserve to be eaten?

Maybe you should be cannibalized, you dirty commie! If you're soft on crime, the criminals will rule our country!

Ditocoaf wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The punishment doesn't always fit the crime. If you don't believe its true, check out California's three strike law. Twenty years for writing a bad check above the amount of three hundred dollars? Get real....

Maybe we could adjust this idea to only cover certain types of prison. Like medium security and above?

What, you're saying that people who write bad checks don't deserve to be eaten?

Maybe you should be cannibalized, you dirty commie! If you're soft on crime, the criminals will rule our country!

Have we reached the imaginary point, in this imaginary country, where dissenters are imaginary cannabalized??? And if criminals aren't going to run this imaginary country, who will run it's imaginary government?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

Mylittlepuddykat wrote:What about prisoners with short sentences, do they get put in with the hard nuts who've already killed and eaten thousands? How long will they last? 30 seconds?

If you sentenced someone to six months you would effectively be sentencing them to the death penalty.

Would this be a bad thing? That's five months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59.5 minutes less we'd have to feed and shelter a criminal. If you don't like jail, don't do the crime.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The punishment doesn't always fit the crime. If you don't believe its true, check out California's three strike law. Twenty years for writing a bad check above the amount of three hundred dollars? Get real....

Maybe we could adjust this idea to only cover certain types of prison. Like medium security and above?

What, you're saying that people who write bad checks don't deserve to be eaten?

Maybe you should be cannibalized, you dirty commie! If you're soft on crime, the criminals will rule our country!

Have we reached the imaginary point, in this imaginary country, where dissenters are imaginary cannabalized??? And if criminals aren't going to run this imaginary country, who will run it's imaginary government?

I can't imagine.

i support the idea, have rapists, killers, dealers, pimps, war criminals and other seriious criminals put in prison and let loose as you say. therefor they will never get out and such.

Brainwave




Lock em up together, provide them with the means to eat eachother, and extend the sentence by 1 month every time they kill and eat someone. It would take serious willpower to get out, rather than this 'good behaviour' bollocks.

sam_levi_11 wrote:i support the idea, have rapists, killers, dealers, pimps, war criminals and other seriious criminals put in prison and let loose as you say. therefor they will never get out and such.

Then we could televise it and make millions!

Right Sam, here's the plan: you get down to the patents office sharpish, and I'll get on the phone to Endemol. We're going to be millionaires.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:i support the idea, have rapists, killers, dealers, pimps, war criminals and other seriious criminals put in prison and let loose as you say. therefor they will never get out and such.

Then we could televise it and make millions!

Right Sam, here's the plan: you get down to the patents office sharpish, and I'll get on the phone to Endemol. We're going to be millionaires.

I don't think that our FCC will even let you put that on cable.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

sam_levi_11 wrote:i support the idea, have rapists, killers, dealers, pimps, war criminals and other seriious criminals put in prison and let loose as you say. therefor they will never get out and such.

Then we could televise it and make millions!

Right Sam, here's the plan: you get down to the patents office sharpish, and I'll get on the phone to Endemol. We're going to be millionaires.

I don't think that our FCC will even let you put that on cable.

Well, that's why they visit the filming locations first.