2006-11-29 06:49:56 · 22 answers · asked by vehement_chemical 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
To watch there bowels move after they die... Its the ultimate embarrasment... Its true
Good Question!!
2006-11-29 06:52:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
We don't really. That's just a movie cliche and/or press sound bite. The only meals made available are those that are readily available at the prison or nearby. Most have nothing special.
2006-11-29 07:07:47 · answer #2 · answered by freebird 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm,.. I think people are all to happy to SLOWLY eat their meal,.. their BIG BIG complicated Meal,.. that maybe can cause some delays and increase the odds of that Phone Call beating out the speed of the Killers,.. I mean Exacutioners.
It probably helps reduce the odds of the body bursting into flames or anything like that after forceing the person to chug fluids, too. And what with all the sucky food they had to endure all that time,.. if they got out before that day they would have plenty of time to make up for it,.. but not haveing the opertunity... atleast give them a reason to NOT TRY TO break out or come up with some request to get to better food,.. you know.
... and lastly,.. what if they were innocent,.. now you can pretend like that meal made up for things. Don't you feel better Xo
2006-11-29 06:55:47 · answer #3 · answered by sailortinkitty 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's an ancient tradition going back to the Egyptians and Aztecs.
Some sources say it has its roots in superstition. "In pre-modern Europe, the ritual of granting the malefactor a last meal has its seeds in common superstition: a meal was a highly symbolic social act. Accepting food, which was offered freely, meant to make one's peace with the host--the guest agreed tacitly to take an oath of truce and symbolically abjured all vengeance. Consequentially, in accepting the last meal the condemned was believed to forgive the executioner, the judge, and the witnessing mob. The ritual was supposed to prevent the delinquent from haunting those people, who were responsible for his or her killing, as a ghost or a revenant."
I think it's a rather humane thing to do, myself, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. The prisoner's request must be reasonable. Death is forever. Let the condemned's final meal be something pleasant--one final joy to carry with him or her to the death chamber.
2006-11-29 06:55:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't mind giving them special meals - but I don't think we should cook them right. You want steak - let's burn it. You want cheesecake - let's leave it out in the sun for awhile. You want a beer - let's leave it out for awhile so it is warm and flat.
God --- I'm evil ...
a
2006-11-29 06:53:23 · answer #5 · answered by Alan 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess for the same reason they use an alcohol swab on the inmates arm prior to lethal injection. It makes no sense whatsoever.
2006-11-29 06:53:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
some sort of half-assed compassion.
if someone is sentenced to die, just kill them on the spot. everything else is cruelty and false hope for an appeal, not to mention more beaurocratic red tape.
2006-11-29 06:57:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hypocrisy.
2006-11-29 06:52:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Compassion. It separates us from the person being executed, who exercised no compassion or consideration to their victims.
2006-11-29 06:52:52 · answer #9 · answered by GreenEyedLilo 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
To give him/her a good send-off. For the journey upstairs or down below
2006-11-29 06:54:31 · answer #10 · answered by Hefeweizen 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
One of man's weird quirks. Like sterilising the needle they use to administer the poison. "Ooh! he might get a skin infection."
2006-11-29 06:53:20 · answer #11 · answered by Thomas V 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋