However manners are social behavior or habits, however society has made it very clear it does not want the person on death row. So I don't see why they should be extended to the person.

Also the difference between me dying and him is the certainty. I eat because I'm betting that I will not be dead in the next few hours, even more specifically, I eat so as to NOT die in the next several days. The sole purpose of eating is to not die. There is no point in feeding the dead.

If we're getting ready to deport someone are they no longer protected by the Constitution? 

So you don't care whatsoever about the food you're eating beyond its nutritional content?  It could taste like shit and you wouldn't care?  Food is more than fuel. 

If you're interested in cutting government waste in this area, why not campaign to stop the cremation/burial of unclaimed bodies?  Just dump them in a landfill. 

But deportation and execution are an entirely different beast. In one case you are removing a person from a section of humanity. When you execute someone he is removed from ALL of humanity, every social norm. You really can't compare the two.

Also, if I had no choice I wouldn't care what we eat. Our tastes have evolved to be what they are, as in paractical. For example sweets, they have a lot of enbergy, however they used to be very rare. So you better eat it as soon as you find it.

I also have no problem with just dumping people in a landfill. Open up a small office, or just tack it onto someone's job description, that if someone has a problem with their corpse being dumped in a landfill, they have 3 months to get up and file a complaint after they die. I wonder how many complaints there will be.,...

This is absolutely a dick move. If anything it's the sort of reaction Whitmore was probably hoping for.

@ vlad, they got to taste it and enjoy the food. I think that despite the horrible crimes MOST of these people have committed, when you're executing someone a little courtesy is called for. 

I can, its just that you are either seeing some unexistant point, or you are totally missing mine. I am all for harsh punishment of a said action, just not the one in which person is killed. Taking away human life is never acceptable, except in self defence and saving innocent life.Whoever does it for any other reason should be severely punished. However, a convict on life sentence cant do any more harm to the society, and if the person he/she killed is already dead(duh), killing a convict wont bring the victim back, so there is no point

"manners are social behavior or habits, however society has made it very clear it does not want the person on death row. So I don't see why they should be extended to the person."

"Constitutional protections are American rights, however America has made it very clear it does not want the person being deported. So I don't see why they should be extended to the person."

You are seriously telling me you don't see the parallel here? 

On food:  but you do care.  And in fact you prove my point when you say we are evolved to want to eat sweets, that they would be something desired because the person will enjoy them and not purely for the fuel provided.  You can still argue that you think we ought to withhold the food as further punishment but not on the basis of "the body doesn't need the fuel so it doesn't matter". 

I can see the parellel, however saying that a cuban being sent back is deprived of his constitutional rights isn't the same as some one receiving a meal before dying. If the person being deported is harmed, physically or mentally, then the harm will remain after he has left the country. If you don't give the death row person a meal, it won't matter worth a damn to him after being dead (again, if it does we can set up an office where he can complain afterwards, let's see how many complaints we get). That is why the parallel is not correct. One is lasting, one is not.

I admit that sweets are something to be esired yes, but that was so we can survive, the whole "survival of the fittest" having a power over evolutin and stuff. The prisoner will not be surviving, hence even the evolved tastes are very much pointless in the grand scheme of things. If it's to make the person feel good, just shoot up some meth in him and then kill him.

Did he actually eat that much???!!!

Anyways, it's surprisong how simple the others' meals were.

Again these were requests, if they actually got them or not, we don't know.

You could have just said "no, i don't see the contradiction in what I said." and it would have been shorter. You said it was hypocritical, saying that the two actions, execution and murder, are the same. However, we agreed that an action has two parts, purpose and consequence. Execution and murder have the same consequence, yes, however the purposes are VERY different, making the actions different and therefore not hypocritical.

Killing the convict is just to make sure society knows what will happen when you do something heinous. Even monkeys who get shocked every time an object is touched learn not to touch said object. It's negative reinforcement for all of society.