Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?
- Thread starter zerobudgetgamer
- Start date
Usually i don't post twice in the same thread, but i need to say this: Following that logic does that mean we should put all the scientists conducting said experiment on death row after the project was over and done with?ZEBSER said:
Let's take a moment here and assume that some person has been wrongfully convicted of a crime for which said person will receive the death sentence. Already, without your proposal, said person is being removed of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness promised to all American citizens, (or whatever values your country of origin guarantees for its citizens), and that is something utterly terrible, and to be stopped at all costs, which is why, until the very day that person is given a lethal injection, the courts go through appeal after appeal trying to clear this person's name.
Now, with your proposal, said person, once convicted, would be at the mercy of experimenting scientists until the day that they either received a lethal injection OR THE DAY THEY WERE EXONERATED OF THAT CRIME.
In any case, whatever reparations governments have to pay to the wrongfully accused would be drastically increased after such experiments were conducted. If there were some guarantee that the inmates were, indeed, guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death, this might be a different argument, but as it is, until the day the Death Row inmate dies, they can be exonerated (and in some cases, even after that day).
In the real world, this proposal is unethical, and if you will not be swayed by the mutable standards of ethics, perhaps the standards of cost efficacy will do what morality cannot (I know for a fact most governments are trying to cut back on spending, not increase it exponentially).
Now, with your proposal, said person, once convicted, would be at the mercy of experimenting scientists until the day that they either received a lethal injection OR THE DAY THEY WERE EXONERATED OF THAT CRIME.
In any case, whatever reparations governments have to pay to the wrongfully accused would be drastically increased after such experiments were conducted. If there were some guarantee that the inmates were, indeed, guilty of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death, this might be a different argument, but as it is, until the day the Death Row inmate dies, they can be exonerated (and in some cases, even after that day).
In the real world, this proposal is unethical, and if you will not be swayed by the mutable standards of ethics, perhaps the standards of cost efficacy will do what morality cannot (I know for a fact most governments are trying to cut back on spending, not increase it exponentially).
Planets of the apes is really not a good reference.zerobudgetgamer said:
but yeah it would help for testing side effects (lots of this can already be gathered through research on rats etc. Its very rare that something is drastically different humans and rats, the immune systems are pretty similar). More often than not trial drugs are given to people who need them the most just after animal testing.
I know you've already been answered, but here's a bit more detail.Thomas Guy said:OMG Jackie Chan...seriously who the hell is that.evilthecat said:Congratulations, you are now on the moral level of this man:
But OT- No that is awful. Just awful.
Shiro Ishii was a Lieutenant General with the Imperial Japanese Army in the second World War. Ishii was the head of "Unit 731", a group that tested potential Biological Weapons to use against the Allies. He performed vivisections--as well as other lethal experiments--on human subjects.
You could give them the option, but the subject seems very reminiscent of a certain Kubrick film. I don't really agree with the death penalty either, but that's a bit off topic.
This falls under cruel and unusual punishment. Kind of illegal, and from a scientific point of view, it's borderline inhumane. Honestly, saying "It's for science, so we will benefit from it as a whole" does not justify anything and how little people know what that means.
For example: If we did things for the benefit of humanity and for science, we would be having unprotected sex at the age of 14 so that we can reproduce by 15-17 so that our genetics are prime for our offspring.
For example: If we did things for the benefit of humanity and for science, we would be having unprotected sex at the age of 14 so that we can reproduce by 15-17 so that our genetics are prime for our offspring.
No. Violent criminals caught in the act or with the evidence should be executed on the spot by police, military, or whoever was wronged. It's a waste of resources to house them, feed them, THEN execute them with a method more expensive/elaborate than a bullet to the head.
I agree with Sane.
The nazis actualy benefited science immensley. Paraphrasing portal "why don't they just marry safe science if they love it that much".
I am against this idea but I see its merits. How we treat hypothermia is due to what the nazis done. How many lives has that saved I don't know but Im guessing quite a few.
The nazis actualy benefited science immensley. Paraphrasing portal "why don't they just marry safe science if they love it that much".
I am against this idea but I see its merits. How we treat hypothermia is due to what the nazis done. How many lives has that saved I don't know but Im guessing quite a few.
If they consent then sure, I don't see the problem with it, it's the exact same thing as selling your body to science. If they didn't consent and were forced to do it (like in FMA), then I would have a problem, because THAT is inhumane.
If you've done something deserving of the death penalty you've forfeited your humanity. Give them the choice, certainly, don't force it on them, but as far as i'm concerned no one on that row is human.