Last Meal

I don't know about you, but I can't help wondering every time I read the details of the last meals served to people about to be executed. The US Constitution and its stance on "cruel and unusual punishment" seems to have been interpreted in every possible manner to confer dubious rights on the very lowest scum, so why take the trouble to "reward" said scum with a nice meal before giving them the needle? What a fucking waste!

Here's an example of a last meal served to a prisoner, courtesy of the Dead Man Eating website:

"Hot and spicy chicken breast, two slices of sausage pizza with extra cheese, a slice of German chocolate cake, a pint of French vanilla ice cream and a Dr. Pepper."

The particular scumbag in question had apparently already killed once, before the murder for which he was executed, but was released after serving only 20 years of a 60 year sentence. (Now that's some serious time off for good behavior.) I won't dwell on the obvious benefit to society that would have accrued if he (and many thousands of others like him) had simply been executed the first time, but why the fuck give him a special meal?

I've got a better idea. Below is a sample menu, and the condemned man should be asked to spin the wheel to select his last meal option:

• His own penis and testicles, lightly fried in garlic butter and served on a bed of lettuce.
  
• The stomach contents of the latest cadaver to be received at the county morgue, pureed and served in a bowl with croutons.
  
• Plump garden slugs, marinated in an infusion of bag-lady's underwear and garnished with phlegm.
  
• Cream of foreskin soup.
  
• Cat afterbirth stew served with chopped assorted rodents.
  
• Microwaved colostomy bag with a side-serving of crispy-fried pubes.
  
• Roasted possum heads, basted with seven-inmate-semen sauce.
  

OK, you get the general idea. Now civil rights lawyers might get all whiny about the cruel and unusual punishment thing, but here's the way I see it. If the Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual" punishment, presumably a punishment must be both cruel and unusual to qualify. Something is only unusual if it is "out of the ordinary, rarely occurring or deviating from the customary". If it is established by law as "customary" then it cannot be "unusual" can it? So provided we do it to all murderers it should be fine, right?

I guess I'd better not expect to pass the bar on the strength of the above argument, but it still pisses me off that the last thing (OK, second last thing) we do to the very worst scum in the country is to give them a fabulous meal of their choosing. How about we just execute them and provide a fabulous meal for the victim's family?

I'm getting down off my soapbox now. It's not that I couldn't go on a bit more, but I need time to get the thought of "cream of foreskin soup" out of my head before dinner.


Copyright 2007 Edward Bison