Death row inmate thinks god is worried about what he eats.

[Burris]

I am not at all saying that he should get the special treatment he requested. I am actually perfectly fine with the court's decision in this case. What I was saying was that people in this thread said that we should let him starve, or give him one loaf of bread a week. Now someone said he should be put together with the general prison population, as they will take care of him (which can really only mean they will kill him, or rape and then kill him). That is barbaric and not worthy of a Rechtsstaat. And quite frankly, I find it appalling.

[And actually, yes, if he refuses to eat what he is being served (since he is being served kosher food), I believe he should be force-fed. It happens all the time with people on hunger strikes.]

I don't agree at all with the ideas some here have shared. Putting this man in general population would create a whole lot of problems - for example, even the most punitive-minded wouldn't want to create a situation that potentially leads to a dozen new made killers that could appear as a direct result of dropping Hayes into the regular system and alerting everyone to the presence of a man the guards would let other prisoners literally tear apart.

Stripping Hayes of basic human rights and religious freedom? Again no. There are, in addition to all the humanitarian arguments, a few other reasons not to do it: Who here would want to encounter any of the guards from a deliberately inhumane system?

Cruelty wilts everything it touches. One only needs to look at how the normally advanced posters her have reacted to Hayes' cruelty for proof of what a pernicious disease inhumanity actually is.

It breeds itself, reproducing in everyone it touches. It can get out of hand really quickly. Those marred by it never recover completely.

That said, if Hayes won't eat, then he won't. I don't see what good it would be to anyome, including Hayes himself, to force-feed him. And his protests aside, he must be eating something. There is simply no way he could go as long as he claims without food and still weigh the 120 lbs he claims to weigh.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

The blanket term for it all isn't murder. It's homicide.

A car accident is manslaughter. Self-defense is, at worst, manslaughter, unless done when the abuser is not an imminent threat. Murder is intentional, whether it's planned, or you shank a guy at a bar over a lost billiards bet.

People who KILL shouldn't expect to keep all their rights. Work them 20 hours a day? No. Worry about special diets that aren't medically necessary? No. If your religious diet is so important, then don't MURDER people. If your kid was raped and killed, would you be out there saying that the rapist-murderer should get a diet he says is because of religion? Or would you say he should have thought about that before torturing your child?

You said, and I quote, first "felons," then "killers," so I really don't understand why you''re arguing semantics with me.

Everyone should be treated with basic respect for their humanity. Please don't think pulling examples of the most heinous crimes you can find negates that. Sure, I'd probably want someone dead for killing my child. I'm not a saint. That's why the system of law exists, to prevent emotional, impulsive, vigilante justice.

Like I said, this guy is probably tapped out in the "special" (if you want to call edible food special) treatment he's going to receive. He should still have the right to sue for "reasonable" accommodations. The judge still has the right to deny him (and did). That's how it works.

[Burris]

Jails ARE cold. They ARE inhumane. They don't adequately treat mental and physical health issues (I really hate hearing about how wonderful healthcare is in the prison system - come on, guys. do you actually believe that??).

Compared to what the public system offers people outside prison, I'd argue healthcare in prison is only marginally worse (and that, because prisoners can't go out and simply buy additional goods and services).

Even if you don't agree on that, in this case - the one involving Hayes - this isn't a man who disappeared into the system and must survive there without recourse. If this man is unhappy, he sues...and loses every time. He isn't being denied food or healthcare. If he's ill, it's likely the result of his refusing to eat - not because the food is spoiled, but because it's not kosher enough for him despite certification by a rabbi. That's idiotic. It's also his own doing.

People don't get their heart, let alone psychiatric medicine. They don't have their corrective eyewear.

Then hopefully a portion of them will sue and win. But none of Hayes' complaints were anywhere near so serious. The closest he ever came was in his complaint about insufficient mental health care, which he lost. And when I consider all the homeless mentally ill, who must choose from a severely limited group of services (and an equally limited number of publicly funded medication options), it seems Hayes actually has a preferable situation: He's not in danger of freezing to death, as the absolutely homeless are in winter, or of dying from dehydration and heatstroke, as the homeless are in summer. He's housed alone, and not with a hundred other men, some of whom might have contagious diseases (such as TB); others of whom might be unstable (and, as such, dangerous to the men who sleep on mats around them).

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked at all the comments about letting general populations "take care" of him, or letting him starve to death, or denying him religious freedom.

He's never getting out (for good reason). Let him sue.

I'm not shocked by the suggestions. Hayes' crime is the kind of thing that brings out the worst in people. That's one of the reasons he should step lightly.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Burris, most of those homeless people have been incarcerated numerous times. Not for a crime like Hayes, but I guaranty they have been in the system. It's a cycle of shitty care - major mental illness, lose work/housing, become homeless, arrested for vagrancy/loitering/drunk in public/shoplifting, released after X amount of time with limited (if any) medication and no follow-up care, get re-arrested, spend MORE time because it violates probation and fines weren't paid, lather, rinse, repeat. If they go to jail enough times, they will end up in prison eventually.

Do you think it's okay to have substandard/a lack of emergency care because you don't have a choice of providers? I don't. There is no impetus for treating prisoners well, outside of the threat of lawsuits, it seems. I also think solitary may be physically safer, but mentally more tortuous. There have been numerous studies on this. I don't know if there's a better way for someone like him, that needs to be permanently separated.

BUT I am not sticking up for Hayes in particular. He has the right to sue, which he's exercised, and he has lost his cases, which sounds fair, based on their merits. I never said he should win, I said he should have the right to sue.