You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #201: Reasonable people think its a 'crock'. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-29-08 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #200
201. Reasonable people think its a 'crock'.
Glad to hear you enjoyed your turkey.
Please make a note that 102 degrees is 35 degrees warmer than the
67 degrees this decision allows food to be consistently served.
Would you like that turkey at 67 degrees day after day?
Obviously not, you cooked it to a delicious 102 and consumed it promptly,
with cranberry no doubt.

Now I appreciate you aren't in the "feed them slop" group, and I trust you
recognize I am not in the "cold food is torture" group. But this appellate
decision is poorly reasoned and incorrect. It is itself unreasonable.

The rule (artculated by the panel) CLEARLY does not meet the plain language
of the regulation, that two meals be "served hot". That's what you look at
first,the plain language, right? Isn't that in the maxims somewhere?
No mention of plain language anywhere. Why was that?
They wanted a rule that wasn't itself enforceable. Duh. Bad panel!

So, "surprize", the regulation defined by the appellate panel does not create an
enforceable standard. There really isn't any way to violate it (without violating
the eighth amendment). Cook the food, then eventually deliver it.
No health or appetite concerns. You'd need to consistently not cook it or not deliver
it to violate the rule. They make it pretty clear, this panel, that in their view
any interpretation which does not violate the the eighth amendment would be deemed by
them 'reasonable'. Yet in that case, whats the point of regulations?

I put it this way. We (society) determine the standard for proper treatment
of prisoners, not the jailer. Unlike this panel I give the jailer little
to ZERO 'deference' in this circumstance (more given in others, such as security).
Regulations are promulgated specifically because we do not intend to treat our
prisoners at the limit of abomination and criminality, or at the naked margins
of 'cruel and unusual'. This panel doesn't seem to agree.

Instead here it is plain that, absent emergency, two meals each day are to be
served hot, where "hot" should meet some basic standard of health and
acceptability, such as the consumer test articulated by the trial court.
Obviously, that standard wasn't being met, according to the finder of fact.

But remember, this isn't about guards doing their best, its about the
system doing what its is supposed to do. So (management) you should feed them
hot food, dammit, or find alternative employment. Geez.
And my only remaining question is: are they daring to say it can't be done?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC