I don't see what's wrong with them recieving goddamn food and housing. What are you going to do, throw them in a pit? They already have it hard enough as it is, being seperated from reality.
As for television, I don't see what's wrong with that either. Sending someone somewhere for a few years with absolutely nothing to do will just drive them nuts.

Reading StrongRad's post made me think that maybe if they made prison tougher, then less people would do criminal acts. Such things as, TV in prisons, any kind of activities besides gym type stuff, hot water in the showers (if there is), horrible food, The works. If people keep improving living conditions in prisons then it kind of defeats the purpose (or atleast A purpose).

I don't know if I agree with that totally. As long as there are humans, I think there will always be criminals. Making prison tougher might reduce crime a little, but, most of the people who would be deterred by tougher prison probably aren't the people commiting crimes anyway.

Tookie is one of the few cases in which people change on death row. As for the death penalty, it is warented in some cases. Such as the Manson case, BTK, The Sniper, Scott Peterson, and cases like that.

I don't know if I agree with that totally. As long as there are humans, I think there will always be criminals. Making prison tougher might reduce crime a little, but, most of the people who would be deterred by tougher prison probably aren't the people commiting crimes anyway.

I have a question. Many people say that letting people sit in jail is a harsher punishment than killing them. If that is true, then why do people on death row make so many appeals?

I think epople who say that are just guessing. Until they sit on death row and stare death in the face then I see no reason how they would what's worse.

Those people are not making it up, so you can't say that they are, which you seem rudely confident about.

The problem with them recieving those things is that we have people, who have not broken the law, that do not recieve those things.

So, prison is hard. Boo-hoo..

If you don't want to go to prison, don't break the law.

Granted, there are innocent people in prison,

but, as I said, that is an indictment on the criminal justice system(which really needs work, but that is a whole other topic), not on prison itsself.

Yes. We seriously need to toughen up prisons. For goodness sakes, it is PUNISHMENT! Punishment does not include cable TV or anything like that. And Rosalie, sometimes people cannot change. Tookie is one of the few cases in which people change on death row. As for the death penalty, it is warented in some cases. Such as the Manson case, BTK, The Sniper, Scott Peterson, and cases like that.

The reason prison is hard is because it's supposed to be hard. If it was comfortable and nice, then some people would actually commit crimes to get into jail.

Then that shows how bad society is to allow things to get so horrible for people that they'd need to do that.

If you ask me, that's just capitalism biting itself in the -CENSOR'd!!- and it kind of deserves it.

So it's capitalism's fault that people are breaking the law? Your argument here essentially boils down to this (this is not strawman, as I know you're going to call it, as the logical conclusion to your last sentence pretty much says that)
It may shock you to know that crime existed before capitalism, and it exists in non-capitalistic societies, too.

I still do not think prison should be easy on prisoners. You scream that we're not providing any evidence to you why it should, but you're failing, as always, to produce evidence that says why we should change our minds and agree with you.

It doesn't seem to bother you much that people can be born in to high society and live the high life at the expense of these people in the first place?

That's... incredibly stupid.

HOW is it warranted? The opposition has still failed to give a single reason why it's necessary to do it.

The reason prison is hard is because it's supposed to be hard. If it was comfortable and nice, then some people would actually commit crimes to get into jail.

On my side of the [color=red size=24]DEATH PENALTY!!![/color] well I say that the Criminals who do this should die because we cant have theese
Psychos,Rapists,Robbers,Gang Bangers all around our community.We have to keep them out of here.
Even if its a Eye for a Eye
A Tooth for a Tooth
and a Nose for a Nose.

I don't get that. I read your fallicies, and you make a strong point, but it all does boil down to that. You can be standing up for your rights, and you know it's against the law, so you're still going to jail for breaking the law. And how do you prevent this? You don't break the law.

I don't have a real problem with someone being born into high society and living the high life, provided they have some appreciation it took someone to get them there. Paris Hilton disgusts me.

If someone has worked their way into high society, they deserve to be there.

I support the death penalty for some people because there are those that are beyond rehabilitation. (this ignores the whole "determining who is able to be rehabilitated" thing, because I don't know how of a good way to do that, but I'm quite sure there are people who do).

I support making prison tougher on inmates because I do think that, if prison is just short of hell, those who serve their terms (thus paying their debts to society) will not want to go back there and will try a lot harder not to fall into their old ways.

I DO like the idea of prisoners getting an education. A chance to learn is a chance to break out of the lifestyle that got some of them into prison in the first place.

It's because I don't see a state sanctioned execution as prescrived by law as being a "wrong".

Therefore, I can agree that "two wrongs don't make a right", and still stand by the death penalty

No, read the links. It explains how the majority of arguments for the death penalty falls under this logical fallacy. Don't take the name too directly/seriously.

Two wrongs make a right is just one of the names of the fallacy.

The structure is defined as:

# It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
# It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

Therefore yes, it does fall under this fallacy.

From the same page "Jill is horrified by the way the state uses capital punishment. Bill says that capital punishment is fine, since those the state kill don't have any qualms about killing others."

Only if you think that executing a convicted criminal after due process, X is the same thing as mudering an innocent person Y..

The fallacy only applies if the "acts" are the same, and I don't think they are.