Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?

[Vykrel]

they should be able to volunteer, at least. itd be a chance at some sort of redemption, for them. if i were on death row, with not much time left, i would just volunteer for all the drugs whats there to lose?

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

You cannot base a medical experiment on one or two cases, it's not viable. There's a reason unit 731 consumed so many people and that's because (unlike Mengle, who was a lone psycho) they were scientifically rigorous.

In order to make your research effective, you'd need to send more people to death row. A lot more. You wouldn't want to just take what you can get, you'd want a good sample with a range of traits and conditions, which means a you'd need a big prison population to choose from. In fact, to conduct effective trials, you'd have to pretty much reduce the justice system to the role of procurement.

I never said the experiments had to only have death row inmates/convicts. If anything, I'm saying we should add their results to the "normal" members of society that volunteer for these things. I think there can be a certain amount of benefit juxtaposing the results of a convict with a "normal" member of society, depending on the project. Of course, as I said, procedures would have to be made to ensure the safety of all, including the regular volunteers, the researchers, even the convicts volunteering.

You are't saying something new,until the '40 they we're doing stuff like that testing medicines,profumes,conservants you name it. But with the Ginevra threaty it got kinda illegal you might aswell change your flag emblem to a svastika. Thing is even if death penalty is a delicate issue(UN voted to have it stopped in all countries that are part of UN)a prisoner even a life senteced one only loses his freedom not his dignity as a human beeing. So yeah no humiliation,torture,experiments,testing etc. Going back 100 years I'll call it devolution not evolution.

I know it kinda got hidden under all that text, but I did mention "Consent" somewhere in my post. If anything, what I'm proposing is giving some of a prisoner's freedom back to him. This would allow prisoners to choose to do something with their lives while they're stuck in prison. For the case of Death Row Inmates and potentially lethal experiments, it would allow them to choose their own death as opposed to letting the justice system do it for them. I've also said it plenty of times now, I'm not trying to condone the outright torture of convicts. Perfectly normal members of society join medical trials and suffer the same "torturous" side effects of the things they try. All I'm saying is we give convicts the opportunity to serve humanity by undergoing the same tests and trials, and obviously receive the same consideration that a "normal" person would should something go awry.

 

[Furioso]

Isn't this the plot to about 35% of all horror movies?

Unless the testing involves "Which is better, Chocolate or White Chocolate" then no thanks

 

[Terminal Blue]

Yet for some reason we have this special rule that "Humans are better then everything else", when all we do is destroy the world, kill each other in interesting ways, and call everything else inferior.

"Anything that can be done to a rat can be done to a human being, and we can do almost anything to rats." (William Gibson)

Stop for a moment and think about what you're saying.

Is it 'rational' in the strictest sense to treat humans as any different from rats. No, maybe not, but consider what you lose.. what we all lose by erasing that difference. Because Gibson is absolutely right there, anything which can be done to a rat can be done to you or me, and you know as well as I do what is being done to rats right now.

You can't opt out of being human, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't matter that you just want to experiment on the 'bad people', because the above statement could read: 'Anything that can be done to a convict can be done to you, and we can do almost anything to a convict' and it would not lose its meaning. We could all be on the vivisection table being sliced up without anesthetic right now and the universe would not bat an eyelid, the only thing protecting anyone from that is social prohibition. Don't be so quick to throw that social prohibition away in the name of 'rationality'.

If you stop believing that human life (all human life) has value and dignity, then you have forfeited your right to live with that dignity, and that's not necessarily a world you want to live in.

I never said the experiments had to only have death row inmates/convicts. If anything, I'm saying we should add their results to the "normal" members of society that volunteer for these things. I think there can be a certain amount of benefit juxtaposing the results of a convict with a "normal" member of society, depending on the project. Of course, as I said, procedures would have to be made to ensure the safety of all, including the regular volunteers, the researchers, even the convicts volunteering.

Not really..

This isn't the 19th century. Hereditary criminality has been debunked. All you get by mixing the prison population into a sample is an extremely questionable sample.

 

[ParadoxHunter]

I think that it's perfectly fine to do that, as long as it's optional, and not forced upon them. Of course, now you have the Human Rights brigade on you, saying they are still human beings and they don't deserve to be treated like that.

If I'm going to be honest, they handed in their human rights when they were put on death row in the first place. If whatever they have done is so terrible, that the government sees fit to kill them for it, then clearly they have no moral compass. If they are subjected to extreme agony, perhaps it's fitting punishment for brutally murdering a bunch of innocents. If they die, then it shortens their suffering, and we are doing them a favour by doing so. Besides, who would want to sit there, passing the days by knowing you will die at any moment?

I don't think they understand what it's like to be in death row. Trust me, if I was ever put on death row, I would pick possible death by experiments (that would benefit humanity in the long run), than the agony of knowing I could die any second, regardless of how much pain I could be in.

Also, it has many practical benefits. We can find out more about the human body and how it responds to certain chemicals, it would clear out prisons at a faster rate, it would be a much better deterrent than just death row, for there is a chance they could be put on parole (no idea why people on parole would ever be allowed out), and we could make great advances in medicine, cryogenics, and even prosthetics.

It does sound immoral, but think about it this way: 2000 years ago, it was considered the norm by the Romans to throw slaves into a large arena to be ripped apart by other humans and animals. Morals change too often for them to be taken into account by science. Science is all about certainty, and morals are the antithesis of certainty.

 

[Yopaz]

Human experiments on prisoners? Sure, why not torture them too?
I am against the death penalty, and against torture of prisoners so there's a big fat no on this question.

Also regarding your edits. You should do some research. Shortest complete life sentence is 16 years with parole after 8.

 

[Lenin211]

never without their consent, but if they were willing, then possibly.

 

[relevantcore]

Well.... why not? If the experiments are for the betterment of mankind...

If they've been proven to have done something worthy of capital punishment completely beyond doubt, then yes. As far as I'm concerned, they're just bodies while they're on death row.

No, they're still humans with choices. Also, this would be every flavor of unethical, and sounds like the beginning of a dystopian society movie.

What about the people they wronged? Did they consider *them* to be 'humans with choices'?

Why should we stoop to their level? Isn't that why we consider them evil in the first place? So doing the same to them would consequentially make us evil, right?

 

[Dahni]

As long as prisoners being used are 100% guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt (to prevent an innocent person from being used for experiments), then yes. I say it'd be a good idea. If someone is a major criminal with absolutely no moral compass and a death sentence anyway, why not put them to use? Seems only fair that they give something back to the world they chose to cause havoc in.

I don't think we should even ask their permission to do it, we shouldn't have to, because we're going to kill them regardless of whether or not they wish to die. What difference would it make if we made use of them in the time they spend sitting doing nothing on death row? Whoever they murdered/hurt certainly didn't get a choice in what happened to them so why should the criminal get a choice? I'm not going to get into a debate about it, but the way I see it is that if someone kills someone else with intent for a reason other than self-defence (or for any other reason that would not stand up in court as a reasonable justification), they should have no more human rights. After all, where the hell was the consideration for human rights of the victim by the same person who's suing the prison for violating his human rights? Seems like a double standard to me.

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

If they consent then I don't see any problems with this.

 

[darkonnis]

This is a very touchy subject, the trouble with it being that it would take a "someone" to define the difference between being humane and beneficial to science and just out right torturing someone.
To my mind, if someone had a disease or cancer then if they consent they should be able to try experimental drugs or operations. Giving someone a disease to then try and cure it isn't right just as forcing surgery on someone who doesnt need it isn't. That would be my distinction. But then i don't agree with animal testing either unless the drug is to cure animals.
I don't believe that they should wait so long, those facing the death penalty should wait a maximum of 1 year before their final punishment is enacted unless a judge specifically states otherwise.

 

[Woodsey]

some of these inmates are possibly innocent,

You've answered the question yourself. And the answer as to why death row shouldn't exist.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

Human experiments on prisoners? Sure, why not torture them too?
I am against the death penalty, and against torture of prisoners so there's a big fat no on this question.

Also regarding your edits. You should do some research. Shortest complete life sentence is 16 years with parole after 8.

Yes, but it's not the average. Most countries seem to run a general average of 15-25 years before parole, with a LOT of places not having a maximum limit. 8-16 is only in Iceland. And for that matter, it is possible to have multiple life sentences, IIRC, and to have life sentences without parole, so even Iceland lifers would be forced into 16 years.

some of these inmates are possibly innocent,

You've answered the question yourself. And the answer as to why death row shouldn't exist.

Once again, not debating the validity of death row. I understand a lot of people don't like it, and the alternative would probably be having to serve (multiple) life terms, which is why I added the second Edit, and emphasized that the experiments don't have to be lethal. However, even if someone might be innocent doesn't give my idea any less merit. As I've said, a potentially innocent man could consent to non-lethal experimentation, help it succeed, and might be able to use that as leverage to either get off death row or push his appeal to prove his innocence. I may not know much about the justice system, so I don't know how well that would go through, but I'm being at least slightly optimistic that the system would see his volunteering in a positive light.

 

[John the Gamer]

No. Never. We wouldn't want to have a convicted criminal turned into a supersoldier by accident now would we? That would go wrong in many different ways.

Bur seriously, if it is to test medicine or operations then I guess it's okay with their consent. Like using a experimental cancer-removal procedure on an inmate with cancer.

Just keep the kill-switch within an arms lenght in case the subject starts to show symptoms of sudden mutation, muscle growth or strange eye-colorations etc.

Spoiler

But honestly folks, I'd say that we should only do it with inmates that are going to die soon anyways, with their consent and only to test drugs/medication/cures/etc that could cure life-threatening decease like aids or cancer.

 

[Mustang678]

Testing on people is bad science. If we started testing on the dregs of society it'd only be a matter of time before innocent people were being tested too

 

[Periodic]

I'm against the death penalty in the first place. I don't see a reason to make it even more despicable.

 

[StANDY1338]

Well I hate to point this out but it occured to me. America already uses these prisoners as a form of slave labour. Is using them for experiments really that far off. I mean who would know never mind care if they were.

 

[kouriichi]

Yet for some reason we have this special rule that "Humans are better then everything else", when all we do is destroy the world, kill each other in interesting ways, and call everything else inferior.

"Anything that can be done to a rat can be done to a human being, and we can do almost anything to rats." (William Gibson)

Stop for a moment and think about what you're saying.

Is it 'rational' in the strictest sense to treat humans as any different from rats. No, maybe not, but consider what you lose.. what we all lose by erasing that difference. Because Gibson is absolutely right there, anything which can be done to a rat can be done to you or me, and you know as well as I do what is being done to rats right now.

You can't opt out of being human, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't matter that you just want to experiment on the 'bad people', because the above statement could read: 'Anything that can be done to a convict can be done to you, and we can do almost anything to a convict' and it would not lose its meaning. We could all be on the vivisection table being sliced up without anesthetic right now and the universe would not bat an eyelid, the only thing protecting anyone from that is social prohibition. Don't be so quick to throw that social prohibition away in the name of 'rationality'.

If you stop believing that human life (all human life) has value and dignity, then you have forfeited your right to live with that dignity, and that's not necessarily a world you want to live in.

I never said the experiments had to only have death row inmates/convicts. If anything, I'm saying we should add their results to the "normal" members of society that volunteer for these things. I think there can be a certain amount of benefit juxtaposing the results of a convict with a "normal" member of society, depending on the project. Of course, as I said, procedures would have to be made to ensure the safety of all, including the regular volunteers, the researchers, even the convicts volunteering.

Not really..

This isn't the 19th century. Hereditary criminality has been debunked. All you get by mixing the prison population into a sample is an extremely questionable sample.

Im not saying human life isnt important. But there IS a limit.
Why do you think the prison populations are getting so high in the United States?
The threat of, "Were gunna give you food and shelter for free, because your a human and we dont want to harm you" doesnt stop violence from happening. It doesnt stop rape, murder, theft and arson.

A line has to be drawn. Many countries have SEVERE laws. In them, you steal, you lose a hand and get sent home. Here, you get rewarded with what you were trying to steal in the first place. Hell, most gang think your "the sh*t" if you kill someone and go to jail.
They get out, and people worship them.

An eye for an eye doesnt make the whole world blind. A person only has 2 eyes to poke out. YOu poke my eyes out, i poke yours, cycle ends. Everyone sees how much being blind sucks, and they stop doing it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Congratulations, you are now on the moral level of this man:

OMG Jackie Chan...seriously who the hell is that.

But OT- No that is awful. Just awful.

I'm guessing something to do with Unit 731.

Look it up.

Or rather... don't.

 

[Cenequus]

You are't saying something new,until the '40 they we're doing stuff like that testing medicines,profumes,conservants you name it. But with the Ginevra threaty it got kinda illegal you might aswell change your flag emblem to a svastika. Thing is even if death penalty is a delicate issue(UN voted to have it stopped in all countries that are part of UN)a prisoner even a life senteced one only loses his freedom not his dignity as a human beeing. So yeah no humiliation,torture,experiments,testing etc. Going back 100 years I'll call it devolution not evolution.

I know it kinda got hidden under all that text, but I did mention "Consent" somewhere in my post. If anything, what I'm proposing is giving some of a prisoner's freedom back to him. This would allow prisoners to choose to do something with their lives while they're stuck in prison. For the case of Death Row Inmates and potentially lethal experiments, it would allow them to choose their own death as opposed to letting the justice system do it for them. I've also said it plenty of times now, I'm not trying to condone the outright torture of convicts. Perfectly normal members of society join medical trials and suffer the same "torturous" side effects of the things they try. All I'm saying is we give convicts the opportunity to serve humanity by undergoing the same tests and trials, and obviously receive the same consideration that a "normal" person would should something go awry.

As I said the only right a convict has removed is their freedom, which means they can already volunteer as subjects to medicine testing etc just like a normal citizen. I really don't see what you propose beyond that really.