6 ms·

> Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish. Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second (and it's pre

• delecti 12y ago
  That's really just a difference of opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the loss of freedom from being in prison is punishment enough, what happens to you there shouldn't be unnecessarily cruel or punishing. The fact that our punishment-heavy system doesn't help recidivism should be a sign that purely punishment isn't effective at rehabilitation.
• TomGullen 12y ago
  Only because YOU consider it mild, probably because you're happy to eat anything. Do you not understand that perhaps other people might feel differently? And are you unable to empathise with that point of view?
  • zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    There are a lot of things I don't like to eat and I'm pretty sure that I would find eating in prison quite troublesome, regardless of what the food is. It's one of the many prices you pay for breaking the law, but surely losing your freedom and seeing the world move on without you should dominate this unease?
    • TomGullen 12y ago
      > I'm pretty sure that I would find eating in prison quite troublesome Because you don't like the quality, or because it goes against your ethics? Do you not see the distinction?
      • zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        I see the distinction, I'm just saying the prisoner's ethics are irrelevant: the society decides what rights and privileges prisoners get in prison, regardless of what they think they are entitled to.
    • rudolf0 12y ago
      Religion and/or ethics are completely different from distaste.
    • UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
      Well there is a major distinction here. We aren't talking about "i don't care for meat." We are talking about someone's deeply held convictions on morality. Oftentimes vegetarianism is a major part of their identity and culture. A vegetarian diet can be part of a relgious practce. Plenty of Indian religions emphasize a vegetarian diet - Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism. As well as well as the Seventh-day Adventist, a Christian religion.
      • baddox 12y ago
        How do you test the depth of one's convictions on the morality of various diets? Do you think that people can willfully choose their own convictions?
        • JoeAltmaier 12y ago
          "A fixed or firm belief" - hm, sounds like religion all right. So, just like a person can't choose a religion, neither can they willfully choose a conviction?
        • UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
          People can willfully choose their own religion too but it is considered unethical to force a group of people to convert to your preferred religion. In fact that can be considered a form of ethnic cleansing in some situations. FYI - i personally am a vegetarian (for over a decade) for ethical reasons and being forced to eat meat would be extremely horrific for me. And i don't think that i would be able to eat fish at all without vomiting. Feel free to make fun of me or whatever.
          • baddox 12y ago
            > People can willfully choose their own religion too but it is considered unethical to force a group of people to convert to your preferred religion. That's why I asked for a test procedure. Someone can claim that they genuinely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and therefore must wear a colander on their head, and without a test, how do you distinguish that from a clothing restriction from a major world religion? You either need some internal test on the mindset of the individual (e.g. a polygraph, if those worked), or an external test on the claimed religion (e.g. a minimum number of global followers).
• chc 12y ago
  Just because you don't happen to share their values doesn't make this the same thing as being a picky eater. I don't think you'd be so cavalier if the prison were doing something that goes against your values — for example, if the prisoners were forced to eat human meat.
  • zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    You're in prison because you disregarded the values that society put in place, surely the society has no obligations to respect your values in prison (although it still goes to some length to do that).
    • chc 12y ago
      "You shoplifted an expensive purse, so now we can force you to eat your late mother" is a positively medieval stance to take. Prisoners are still human beings, and forcing them to do horrible things like that is a violation of both the general idea of human rights and several parts of the US Constitution.
      • zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
        You're committing the slippery slope fallacy. My point still stands regardless of the extreme example you decided to illustrate it: you disregarded society's values and in return the society will disregard some of your values. The prisoner doesn't get to decide what is cruel and unusual punishment to them.
        • kmm 12y ago
          Of course the prisoner doesn't, society does, but that's just being pedantic, nobody's arguing that! The point is that a society that forces a diet on a prisoner , which that prisoner finds immoral, is wrong.
• schoen 12y ago
  I think it's significant that you switched the parent commenter's "something they consider immoral" to "something you don't like". It does sound pretty mild if it's something you just don't like for mild aesthetic or taste reasons. That's definitely not the way many people think about some of the things that they don't eat.
  • zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    How the prisoner perceives this deprivation is irrelevant: "I need to eat filet mignon once a week" "No" "But it's immoral for me not to" "Oh okay then" Prisoners are granted privileges based on how society and its laws perceive their demands. Nothing gets automatically granted just because of morality or religious choices by the prisoner.
  • baddox 12y ago
    > I think it's significant that you switched the parent commenter's "something they consider immoral" to "something you don't like". I'm not the parent commenter, but I think those two phrases imply only a difference in scale.
• knutsen 12y ago
  > Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second That is not a society I want to live in. Prison should protect the remaining population and rehabilitate, punishment should be a consequence of the means necessary to do so. Prioritizing in that order (protect -> rehabilitate). In my opinion anyways..
  • jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    It is the society you live in. The entire point of prison is to suck, so as to be a deterrent against going there.
    • DanBC 12y ago
      But thise prisons are stupid. They're very expensive and they just don't work. And by removjg diets you are disproportionately punishing some people. A Muslim given the same sentence as someone with no religion will suffer more as a result of imprisonment purely because of the lack of dietary choice. "Prison should suck" is a horrible sentiment, and runs contrary to the UDHR. I understand that American hasn't ratified that, but that's not because they disagree with it.
      • jsmthrowaway 12y ago
        I didn't say it was right. I said it is the society we live in. Subtle difference but a key one, since you ran with it and ascribed things to me I didn't say (I'm not sure where you read -- and quoted -- me saying "prisons should suck," so this is a really crucial misread). It is very important to understand that I did not share an opinion with that observation. To that end, I've been there. You think I'd come out and go "gosh golly, that was sure an effective means of handling my situation?"
    • knutsen 12y ago
      Living in Norway, I don't feel that to be the truth. You have a great point though! But I think removal of freedom, and in some cases isolation, suffices as deterrent.
  • 12y ago
• PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  > Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second That's certainly how it is now, yes. You think that's how it should be? Most prisons suck are incompetent and ineffective and need reforming. Accommodating vegans is one of the many things that needs to be reformed.
• DanBC 12y ago
  Entomophagy - eating insects - provides cheap protien. Would you be happy if you were forced to eat insects? I don't think you understand how ingrained some of these "voluntary" diets are; how strong taboo is. EDIT: also, forcing people to eat a certain diet is disproportionately punishng them. Do we give those prisoners reductions in their sentence just because they were life-long vegans before they went to prison?
• fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second Says who? Punishment (beyond the punishing nature of the denial of one's freedom) need only be a part of prison because some peoples' (defective) morality demands it. The first priority of a prison is to protect the people at large from the expected behavior of convicted criminals. >Of all the consequences of breaking the law, being forced to eat something you don't like certainly sounds pretty mild. What reason do you have to believe that forcing vegan prisoners to eat a non-vegan diet (or starve) will have any rehabilitative effect? Or are you happy to mete out punishments arbitrarily based upon individuals' personalities? Prisons already accommodate a multitude of diets for various (mandatory) reasons. It really isn't expensive to accommodate one more.
  • baddox 12y ago
    It sounds like many of us in this thread might be talking past one another confusing normative and positive claims about the purpose of imprisonment.
    • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      I think you might be on to something. Good time for a walk outside. Cheers.