Wouldn't it be cheaper and tidier to lock him down in solitary, with no more dialysis, until nature takes its course? That would certainly terminate his physical disability, and at no cost to Oregon.

The best answers are sometimes the simplest.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

What cracks me up is lethal injection: before they give the guy his shot, they administer an alcohol swab.

What's up with that?

I like it! I would have just said no transplant, save the kidney for someone who's going to be around to use it, money be damned. Well, I mean letting nature take its course would be cool too, but it's not the kind of thing society allows.

Is this site a joke in the vein of Black People Love Us? Or are you seriously a blog pretending to defend the "liberal tradition" by hoping for the most degrading and inhumane death for a prisoner as possible? Why don't you just beat up on an ethnic group for simply existing? Oh that's right-- you're a "friend" of Israel.

...here, put on this flack vest.

Alexandra:

First, this is Dean's blog - I am just a contributor.

Second, if I was hoping for an inhumane death for a murdersous piece of shit I would have been much more creative, I assure you.

Third, are you equating a murderer on death row with various ethnic groups? You must be a Far Left-Democrat. You had nothing interesting to say, no ideas, defended the indefensible, sneered at Israel and threw in a straw man.

Welcome to Dean's World. I am Dean's wife. I do what I want and say what I want. I am right most of the time - best you learn that now.

Enjoy your stay.

In the words of the immortal Johnny Storm:
FLAME ON! Heh.

Please be gentle, Rose, it's her first time. :)

Um, Alexandra, you do know we are talking about a man who murdered one girl by stabbing her over 40 times, and nearly managed the same with her sister?

What does society owe this creature? Besides a swift & merciful execution?

Yes, I'm sorry, Rosemary; your suggestion violates the "cruel & unusual punishment" clause, even if it isn't as bad as strapping someone down and forcing them to listen to Prince 24/7. :)

Ara: what is not forbidden, is compulsory. Ordnung!

Rosemary, Alex@antisocial.com is just proving why they insisted on giving her an honorary E-mail account. Feeding the trolls only makes them multiply...

As for that crack about her being a “far left Democrat”, don’t you know? We kicked all them into the green party several years ago. The fact that they haven’t noticed yet only proves how dim they are...

Having said all that, I have to disagree wit you; this man _should_ be on the list. Way at the bottom. As long as one person in the world needs a kidney, this guy should be denied. But since hope springs eternal... See, torture, but without actual repercussion...

Rose: The felon in question has publicly stated that he thinks the state is nuts. "sooner or later" he says "the man is going to have to do his job" and he doesn't want to take a good kidney with him.

Arnold: If minimal expense were the goal, it would be cheaper just to shoot him.

Alexandra: "hoping for the most degrading and inhumane death for a prisoner as possible?"

Sayyyy, you're pretty ignorant, aren't you? Death from kidney failure is far from the most degrading and inhumane way to go. I wouldn't go so far as to call it pleasant, but (due to my own lack of functioning kidneys) I've been as close to going through that door as you can go, and it wasn't all that bad.

I think the most degrading and inhumane way to go would be to have to be talked to death by liberals. :)

I think the most degrading and inhumane way to go would be to have to be talked to death by liberals. :)

Especially if what they're talking about is how they sympathize with your plight and how The Man is responsible for your inadvertently stabbing a girl 40 times and it could have happened to anybody, there but for the grace of God...

<shudder>

I almost talked myself to death there.

How could allowing this man to die of his illness be considered cruel and unusual when giving him a kidney will deny another person who needs it to survive? People die all the time from ailemnts that could be cured by a transplant that never happens because of a lack of organs. It's sad, but hardly cruel. We deny liver transplants to people who have abused themselves (no drinking on that new liver!), why can't we deny this man a kidney? All death is tragic, but when you have to decide who will die and who will live, as one does when handing out oragn replacements, you need to weigh all the possible benefits and caveats.

Did I miss something?

They're not considering a transplant because they're [insert shibboleth]; they're considering it because it will cost less than continuing the dialysis over the period his appeals are expected to take. (You may think the appeals process is too drawn out, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but the Oregon state government doesn't control that.) They've got three choices:

1) Continue the dialysis, spending lots of money.

2) Do a transplant, spending less money (but potentially denying someone else the kidney).

3) Kill a convict by refusing to provide standard medical treatment for a chronic condition.

Which one do you think is the best idea, here?

I stumbled upon this site yesterday evening, interested in a blog proclaiming to defend the liberal tradition. Not to be confused with the more commonly used definition of liberal as left of the political center, I thought this might be an insightful forum for the free expression of intellect. Rather what I found were some meanspirited, ugly comments based not upon reason or logic, but upon emotion and (dare I say) sentimentality.

I refuse to go through the original content and subsequent posts, picking apart each fallicious argument or personal attack. It frightens me to realize that if retributive hotheads like you got your way, our system of justice would be no better than it was in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It doesn't matter if the murderer stabbed her forty times or four, we still need to keep our wits about us and distribute justice as dictated per our laws and our great Constitution. It's the sentimental ignorance of people like you, Rosemary and other Posters, who keep fascists like John Ashcroft in business.

Admittedly my attack on Israel's human rights record was a cheap shot. It was overwhelming to read so much hatefulness at one time, and I merely linked one human rights abuse situation with another. I was not connecting a murderer and an ethnic group, but rather your hatefulness toward our judicial system and another form of hatefulness you espouse.

But then again, why bother talking to a couple of egomaniacs who only want to hear from likeminded people? As Rosemary so arrogantly points out, "I am right most of the time - best you learn that now." An open dialogue in the true spirit of liberalism is impossible with such a person.

Alex

Man, people who have no sense of humor are funny! Now that's irony.

...fascists like John Ashcroft? You may dislike the man, but you've either redefined "fascist" or become quite confused for some reason. On second thought, it must be the latter if Rosemary and Saddam fall into comparable judicial categories in your perspective. You MUST have been joking, right?

Gary, my goal in regard to prison management is neither mercy nor the trivialties of microcost management. As I have previously discussed at length with David Mercer on Dean's World, I would prefer to empty the prisons of all the non-violent inmates, including drug users. They are best handled by medical treatment or wireless communication-enhanced parole, with their civil liberties restored complete after a suitable period.

In my scheme of things, a much smaller number of prisons would be reserved for violent criminals. These I would break.

Murderers convicted on direct evidence, or those who had taken lives in armed robberies, rapes or other assaults, I would put to death.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

"1) Continue the dialysis, spending lots of money.

2) Do a transplant, spending less money (but potentially denying someone else the kidney).

3) Kill a convict by refusing to provide standard medical treatment for a chronic condition.

Which one do you think is the best idea, here?"

3 is obviously bad, I would prefer #1 to #2 because a functioning donated kidney is a scarce resource, unless someone has donated one with the express direction that it go to him, or no one else on the list could possibly accept it. It may cost the government more money to continue dialysis, but it costs society more to give him the kidney, because it takes it out of circulation.

Rosemary, your statement that the state should be "as merciful to him as he was to his victims" was reprehensible. As was someone elses statement that he should be locked in solitary and allowed to die of toxin build up. I don't know if either of you meant it, but it doesn't really matter, as the statement about the statements stands either way.

If the state is going to kill him, and it certainly appears they will, they should do so actively, visably, and without unnecessary pain. Not because *he* deserves it, but because to do otherwise would be wrong/evil regardless of what he did. And I'd like to think it would be beneath us.

That said, Alex, histrionics, false comparisons, and straw men lose arguments, and get you laughed at even if your conclusion happens to be correct. Saying what you did will *never* start reasoned argument anywhere because it was not a reasoned statement. If you want to be taken seriously don't start an statement with "is this a joke", "you all are morons", "I can't believe I'm talking to you", or anything semantically similar. It indicates that you do not take the people you are talking to seriously, and therefore you should not expect them to take you seriously.

Michael:

You are right it was reprehensible. That was my gut reaction and I typed it. I find the whole situation reprehensible.

Alex:

Admittedly my attack on Israel's human rights record was a cheap shot.

Really, when there are so many others to choose from - it shows your unbridled anti-semitism that is running rampant on the political Left.

It was overwhelming to read so much hatefulness at one time, and I merely linked one human rights abuse situation with another.

So you can't handle the emotional response I got from the idea that the State is going to possibly take a much needed kidney from an innocent person only to deliver it to a vicious murderer - who is going to DIE anyway.

I was not connecting a murderer and an ethnic group, but rather your hatefulness toward our judicial system and another form of hatefulness you espouse.

I do not hate our judicial system. I hate murderers. I am anti-murder. I espouse no other such hatefulness.

I do get annoyed from people flinging insults and espousing their own moral superiority.

You came in here with an attitude and you will leave here with one. People that read this blog know me.

Hence, the offering of a flack vest to you by Mr. Rubyan.

The straw man ALWAYS gives you away. You can't hide who you are by shifting blame.

One more thing, sentimental ignorance my dear Alex, is what kept your dreamboat Bill Clinton in office. I am neither sentimental nor ignorant. It is attitudes like yours that will keep Ashcroft in business because nobody listens to a screeching harpy - that calls everybody a facist - except ACTUAL FACISTS.

Stick around you might learn a thing or two before you turn 30.

You may actually decide that you like us. Or not.

I've been lurking here for a few months now. It is one of my favorite places to visit. Dean and Rosemary are probably two of the smartest people I've ever known. Well I don't really know them but I feel like I do.

I can't believe that anybody would compare Rosemary to Saddam Hussein. Or call her ignorant.
She obviously didn't get too insulted because she didn't turn Alex into a speck of dust, like she usually does.

Let me just say that I was insulted for her. I have read everything that she has written. She is one of my favorite writers and commenters. She really tickles my funny bone. I don't always agree with her but she makes me think and I like that about her. She is by no means hateful. She is spirited and opinionated. Her brain power jumps off the screen. Rosemary, I think you're great.

Alex you need to check your ego at the door because you are way out of your league, here.

Back to lurking now.

The new movie of Dean's life: "So I Married a Baathist." Coming soon to a theater near you. ;-)

When you run a jail or prison (and there is no way around it: there must be jails and prisons), you inevitably end up in lots of pickles like this one, where practical and ideological or emotional considerations are directly at odds.

When I was a county commissioner in Ingham County, one incarcerated woman put a big hole in our budget by attempting suicide by setting fire to herself, giving rise to a large bill from the University of Michigan burn center. (This was back in the days when prisoners in the jail were permitted to smoke.)

Another sticky problem is how to deal with female inmates who either come into the institution already pregnant, or, ahem, become pregnant while incarcerated. Under what circumstances is an abortion the right answer? If a prisoner gives birth, what happens to the kid? One women's prison in New York State has a nursery.

Another problem, while we're on women's prisons, is that all the ideology about equal treatment of men and women is inapplicable to prisons. Women and men prisoners are fundamentally different creatures who have to be managed in fundamentally different ways. Brass tacks gender differences, maybe, deeply ingrained culture, whatever. Running a women's prison is CONSIDERABLY more stressful on the staff, and many states fail to prepare employees for this, blithely transferring personnel back and forth between men's and women's prisons without any extra training. Prisoners is prisoners, right? Nope.

In the case under discussion, the problem is that kidneys are economically undervalued, making it cheaper to pay for a transplant than dialysis. But changing health care economics to recognize the scarcity value of kidneys would have other costs. Dogmatic libertarians might decry the suppression of a market in reusable body parts, but at least we don't have the organleggers envisioned by Larry Niven.

Fundamental fact is, you lock somebody up, you're responsible for him or her.

I say dialysis, it's humane to the prisoner and provides maximum benefit to society. So what if it's expensive, we ARE the richest nation in the history of the world, and can afford to have it both ways in this case in the grander scheme of things, so I view doing otherwise as less moral.

And Larry seems right about the female prisoners being a real handful to me. A very close friend of mine has multiple members of his family that have worked in corrections. I've heard them tell some real doozies about working in women's facilities!

Even as a Clinton Love Child, I gotta say, when convicted of a felony, I believe, by law, one forfeits certain rights. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now, I would propose a law, that as a convicted felon (regardless of the crime - because white-collar crime is just as bad sometimes as violent crime) you also forfeit the right to be a future organ receipient. It's not cruel, it's justice...at least in my mind.

BTW: What's wrong with Prince!?!

Tim

Would it be so bad to take the kidney back before pumping him with potassium?

Elize O'Connor

Alexandra's comparison of Rosemary to Saddam Hussein was a BIG compliment since as we all know for letists like her Saddam was a man of peace, loooooooved by the Iraqui people: he got 100% of the votes (remember the leftist demonstrators with signs reading "At least Saddam was elected"), and a highly compassionate man fond of helping the families of suicide bombers (specially those whose had managed to kill some children).

What would be an insult in Alexandra's mind would be a comparison to George W Bush, or still worse, to Mother Theresa (a devout catholic, yuck).

Alexandra:

There is some good advice here. Suggest you at least think about it.

Ara:
re; alcohol swab

We can't give the condemned prisoner's family (read: blood sucking gold diggers)an excuse to file a lawsuit, can we?