Moderator: Community Team
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
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?
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!
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?
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.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users