” You gotta feed him, you gotta give him medical care, etc.”
Why?
” You gotta feed him, you gotta give him medical care, etc.”
Why?
Because, unless he’s been given a death sentence, no one should be dying from neglect in prison. The crimes he was convicted of were not death penalty offenses.
He’s totally incapable of getting medical treatment on his own.
Therefore, if he’s in prison, we taxpayers provide treatment.
What’s the alternative? That every man or woman in prison, whether for tax evasion, grand theft, drug possession, assault, or even the few who are innocent (and we know they are there), is subject to a sentence of no medical or dental care while incarcerated.
I could not go along with that. Except perhaps for those who are waiting for the chair anyway.
Well, for example the word “custody” itself means “guardianship” or “in the care of”, not simply that the guy isn’t free to leave of his own volition. It means that you’re taking responsibility for the guy.
Somebody said he wouldn’t have got good medical care in El Salvador. If the guy were from Ethiopia, would it be OK not to feed him? If you don’t want to assume the responsibilities of having someone in custody because he wouldn’t be any better off back in El Salvador, then send him back there.
Now another Freeper responded to the same post and said that medical treatment was given, but wasn’t successful. If so, then fine. I’ll have to reread the original article.