>>Of course it's about us, meaning society. How we treat criminals is part of the bigger picture of how we treat all our fellows.
>
>What do you think? Queen size bed in every cell? Maybe a DVD player ... an iPod?

Would you do us the courtesy of coming back in a few years? Meanwhile, try to learn to think in general, abstract like terms? Like, "us" doesn't necessarily mean "us who talk here" nor "us who code in Fox", nor "us who talk about the legal system". It will dawn to you, in due time, that there's an "us" meaning "society in general", and "we" in "how we treat criminals" is exactly the "we as a society, including criminals themselves".

Also, pretending to be extremely stupid is not a civilized way of having a conversation. The logical fallacy you just performed here may qualify as such when observed by those who may not know you. You go so far below your level again, and I may lose my patience again. I may have my personal reasons for that, so let me be short fused once in a while, OK?

>>In my view, killing them is a violent act. Imprisoning them, and giving them drug treatment, mental health care, etc., would be a compassionate act. I want to be part of a compassionate society.
>>
>
>I think I just got couple of more cavities. :)
>
>Wonder how many "compassionate" acting judges let out murders just to have them kill again?

I presume you meant not murders, but those who commit them. The incarceration system is set on its head nowadays. It's become a profitable industry, with the slave inmate prisoner labor being cheaper than those in the Asian sweatshops (because we're funding the accommodations by our tax money, plus there's almost zero transportation cost, so the prisons are overpopulated by low grade able bodied offenders, specially from the states with the three strikes rule. So yes, murderers get off because they are pros and know how to play the system and they are paid well so they enjoy the best legal system money can buy, while the poor actually have to smack a cop so they'd spend the winter indoors, or are so malnourished they get caught when shoplifting for food for the third time. So a $15 worth of shoplifting, if done over a sufficient number of small attempts, can land you life in prison, while the murderers can walk. It all depends on how skillful you are (to find a weasel lawyer - and to have money for one). There are also a few other possible causes, just heard there's a congressional hearing about those. Additionally, there's a lot of leniency for DUI and vehicular manslaughter. Why are those let to walk... drive away? There's a guy they recently caught who was caught 21 times for DUI - only it was in different parts of the area, over the last 6-7 years, and there's no central database, even on the state level, or it at least wasn't updated, so he was able to get away as a first timer for at least a dozen times, and to walk away with a slap on the wrist several times. He had to smash into a toll booth to finally attract attention.

But is that the compassion Tamar was talking about? I'm not sure that I've found a single thing that can be ascribed to compassion in the whole long paragraph I just wrote. I've just described several categories of people for whom crime does pay.

I may not believe in compassion for the same reason as Tamar does, but if a society treats so many of its citizens as criminals, criminals is what it will have for citizens. I'd prefer to live with decent human beings, so I believe the society should respect everybody's dignity.