Yes, Of Course We Should Feed Rapists and Murderers. Oh, And We Already Do

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) recently added an amendment to the farm bill to prevent those convicted of violent crimes from receiving food stamp benefits. Kevin Drum wrote a blog post on the subject of this amendment, in which he quotes someone else saying that, once such an amendment is proposed,

Then the tacit question arises: Does anyone in this chamber want to stand up and say that taxpayers should feed murderers, rapists and pedophiles? No? Of course not.

Okay, fine, I'll say it: of course the taxpayers should feed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, at least those who qualify for taxpayer-feeding by the normal criteria. They are still human beings, and society has not decided that they have forfeited their right to live. If it had, it would have executed them, which I'm against in any case but which is by no means implausible in practice. By releasing these people from prison, society is signalling that it still considers them members of itself. Thereafter leaving them to fend for themselves against the prospect of starvation, while not forcing others similarly situated socioeconomically to do so, is incoherent.

Also, it's worth noting that taxpayers feed murderers, rapists, and pedophiles all the time, when they're in prison! Actually taxpayers pay less to feed an imprisoned murderer for live than they would pay to have that murderer executed, but taxpayer money, typically at the state level, is responsible for every calorie a prisoner ever consumes. Because, until and unless the state decides to kill a prisoner, it still recognizes its basic obligation not to let that person starve, and while imprisoned they rather plainly have no other means of sustenance. The percent share of convict-food that's taxpayer funded is way, way lower for the set of released-from-prison convicts than for the set of still-imprisoned convicts. So, given that, as Kevin Drum notes, this has zero impact on either the fiscal picture or the future violent-crimes rate, the actual philosophical message being sent is entirely incoherent: while the state is in the act of punishing these people it will respect their right to sustenance by providing their entire diet, but once it formally releases them back into society it will insist that they be allowed to starve if they are unable to find food themselves. It's pointless cruelty for the sake of pointless cruelty. They're people just like everyone else, and until you decide to kill them you have the same responsibility for their non-starvation as you do everyone else's.