conflictofinterests 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.
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.
Do you not understand the definition of Consent?? I've said it quite a few times already, I'm not saying we grab someone who's just been put on Death Row and start injecting him with lethal drugs and/or diseases while he's kicking, screaming, and pleading for them to stop. I'm saying the person's been on Death Row for maybe a year or so - I've heard the average time most people sit on Death Row is around 10 years, so we could even bump it up to two or three years - and there's no sign that he's going to be proven innocent. He's then given a choice; he can either sit in his cell for the rest of his days, or he can go outside and participate in an experiment/trial/procedure/whatever. If possible, payments could be made to his family for his participation.
So, given your example, the wrongfully convicted person may have no hope for the justice system, and will instead see this as a way to choose how he dies, rather than have the government decide for him, while also receiving a small bit of reparations for his family. Now, of course, if the procedures work, he lives, he benefits mankind, and who knows? His help to the project might just get used to help free him and get him off Death Row.
Ov3rdose said:
Your logic is that there going to die anyway and while they wait they take up space ,in a way so do the terminally ill and there is a lesser chance that they get cured miraculously .Do you want to do tests on the terminally ill?
Aren't they technically tested on, anyway? Aren't experimental procedures performed on terminally ill patients all the time? Isn't that how Chemotherapy came to be?
Father Time said:
zerobudgetgamer said:
Dango said:
Absolutely not. That's just immoral and cruel.
And just plain killing them isn't?
Did he say that? Well if he did I'm going to say both of them are immoral.
But besides the death penalty is supposed to be quick and painless (I say supposed to because sometimes it isn't). Medical experiments aren't always painless and they certainly aren't quick.
I didn't create this thread to debate the death penalty. People who are opposed to the death penalty seem to automatically be opposed to this, as has been seen in a few posts. From my point of view, the Death Penalty is the government telling a person how and when he will die. Consent to Experimentation is the person telling the government how he wishes/chooses to (possibly) die. While a premature death is still the result, at least the latter, IMO, is slightly more humane than the former.
