In prison sucicide is denied prisioners, but for religious or punishment purposes?
453873
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi
789447
I find it odd that people ask for sources when the majority of people IN jail are Christian.  And no, they didn't all convert while they were in there.\n\n"I believe you will find more non-Christians behind bars than Christians, a lot more. "\n\nSorry RB but as I said, that's not the case.  Christians make up about 70% of all convicts in US jails.  Other religions make up most of the rest but atheists only make up less than 0.1%.  The believers far outweigh the non-believers.
412022
Age old question.  An eye for an eye.  It's the final way we have as a society of saying to those who commit murder that we will not tolerate the behaviour.  Unfortunately, jail and the death penalty do not seem to be a deterrent to those who commit the crimes - otherwise we'd have empty prisons and no such thing as death row.
873358
Yes. The Criminal Justice System does not recognize the judicial powers of an Islamic body to punish anyone. Hence, any crime committed in pursuance of carrying out any Fatwa issued against the victim would be triable under the criminal law and the Fatwa issuing body is also liable for prosecution.
915123
Religion or no religion regardless if someone is demonstrating odd behavior like that around my children they need to be escorted away. I dont give a damn if you fee that you are religiously justified. Your not justifed by my foot that would quickly be in somones ass for not making sure my children was protected. I agree with you, and i wish you well
674960
They are usually retained by the use of handcuffs and iron chains...depending on the situation as to why they are being imprisoned. Officers have to be careful as to how they handle the prisoner due to liability.
495246
I would imagine that the Constitution might protect prisoners from being forced to participate in "rehabilitative" activities.  So a prisoner might not be forced to work because of the 8th and 13th amendments, or he might not be forced into group therapy because of the 1st and 8th amendments.\n\nBut constitutional arguments against offering rehabilitation to those who want it?  I can't think of anything.  It's not any sort of taking from the non-imprisoned population and it serves a legitimate public interest.
1060997
Convicted felons can be deprived of certain rights that otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. This is an ancient and accepted legal tradition known as "civil death."  \n\nThis deprivation of rights is limited however to those things which are construed as being privileges of citizenship rather than fundamental human rights. Gun ownership, voting, the practice of certain professions, and holding civic office are the most prominent of such privileges.
318554
NO. only if it askes that specific question.  otherwise you technically have not been convicted of anything.  always put NO.
411268
That would be a NO!  It is illegal to restrain someone unless they are trying to hurt themselves or others.
562978
http://prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/2004-March/008873.html
127413
I don't beleive so. Maybe in Saudi Arabia you can be condemned to death, but in the USA definitely not. Islamic laws in different countries and among different cultures are different. My opinion is that nobody can condemn you to death because of your religious beliefs.
377317
Technically it still does for treason!\n\nThis is so easy a subject to generalise about and so difficult to be case-by-case specific.\n\nIt does seem illogical to keep someone in prison until they die but it also seems illogical to do it as a deterrent for other people (isn't that killing someone for someone else's crime they have yet to commit).\n\nI have to be honest and say that I have heard of cases where I would have no problem if the person was executed but the line is very difficult to specify.\n\nMaybe not having it is an honour we should hold up rather than a burden to bear.\n\nPeace out.
564560
I think imprisonment is not aimed for torture per se.  Jails are there to contain the damage that would otherwise be inflicted on the innocent public by criminals if they out in the streets.  Even prisoners have a right to food, to intellectual freedom (within the prison walls) and the right to human dignity.  They should not be treated like animals.  \n\nThe law presumes that given the necessary minimum living conditions, guilty hardened criminals may still have a change of heart during their imprisonment.  So they are given training that would allow them to find a job after serving their sentence.  If the motivations for the crime were proven to be 'outside' of their control the penalty is alleviated or made lighter.  In this case, it is pretty difficult to discern whether the bomber was brainwashed or not.  They probably have evidence too that he is not demented so he wasn't confined to a psychiatric ward either. Lifetime imprisonment is a catharsis that would allow the prisoners to think back on their actions, to redirect their lives and if they believe in a religion, to repent and mend their inner selves.\n\nSo yes, I think the jury exercised prudence by not giving death penalty to the bomber.
886942
I don't think there's specific cases as to why the denial is legal.  As you said, freedom of speech is why.  That's the same reason there's racist people, homophobes, and crazy religious fanatics.
225383
The higher purpose in permitting it is to affirm that every person should shall have full jurisdiction over what happens inside the boundaries of his/her body.  Therefore by permitting it we are acknowledging that the freedom of a person to control their own body is more important than other considerations.  However we are not endorsing the choices they make as "good".  We are merely choosing not to intervene forcefully in a person's excersise of thier soverign rights over their body.  In this light, persuasion and dialog become the tools of those who wish to stop the practice, not the threat of imprisonment or execution by the government (there are people out there who believe that it is murder and should be punished with death).  \n\nYour second question becomes irrelavent unless you believe that you or the government has a role in determining how a person should be permitted to exersise control over what goes on inside thier body.\n\nHuman sacrifice is ritualistic religious killing of a person in order to gain some favor with a God that they fear, in hopes that they will be granted some sort of boon from their god, such as good weather or reprieve from a plague.  I don't see how anyone would have an abortion to please God, but fervently religious people NEVER fail to surpirse me!
334572
in Iran they have to,if they don't,they'll be imprisoned or tortured!IT'S A LAW.in other islamic secular countries like Malaysia they cover their bodies due to their belief