Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?

[RTR]

If they agree, I don't see why not.

 

[Twilight_guy]

You know why we don't kidnap people to preform experiments on? Because we don't preform experiments on people against their will. Death Row inmates might be sentenced to death but that doesn't give us the right to do with them as we like. The inmates still deserve dignity and respect. That's why the state provides a quick and painless end be lethal injection (which is far more expensive then potentially just shooting them and burying them in a mass grave). They are sentenced to death but still have rights to the last.

 

[Jonabob87]

1. No.
2. You disgust me.

 

[Madara XIII]

EDIT2: Since so many people seem to immediately shout their opposition of the Death Penalty, allow me to add an extra clause: Should people who have been given a Life Sentence (or more) in prison be allowed to consent to experimentation? For those who don't know, depending on where you live in the world, a Life Sentence can be anywhere from 15-30 years before having a chance at parole, with some places having a max sentence of as little as 25 to as many as 50 years. The Consent would come with a small payment that would go to an outside source, and possible consideration of early parole. And obviously, the experiments don't HAVE to be life-threatening, even for the Death Row inmates.

Sure, why not if they agree?

I don't give a fuck what others say about the death penalty, but in my experience I know damn good and well that there are some sick twisted bastards who don't deserve to live after what they've done, and giving them a life sentence won't weigh even a feather on whatever is leftover of their conscience.
So yeah. I'm for it.

 

[Madara XIII]

You know why we don't kidnap people to preform experiments on? Because we don't preform experiments on people against their will. Death Row inmates might be sentenced to death but that doesn't give us the right to do with them as we like. The inmates still deserve dignity and respect. That's why the state provides a quick and painless end be lethal injection (which is far more expensive then potentially just shooting them and burying them in a mass grave). They are sentenced to death but still have rights to the last.

It said they have the option to give consent

 

[Twilight_guy]

You know why we don't kidnap people to preform experiments on? Because we don't preform experiments on people against their will. Death Row inmates might be sentenced to death but that doesn't give us the right to do with them as we like. The inmates still deserve dignity and respect. That's why the state provides a quick and painless end be lethal injection (which is far more expensive then potentially just shooting them and burying them in a mass grave). They are sentenced to death but still have rights to the last.

It said they have the option to give consent

If they're giving consent then this topic is no longer about deathrow inmates its about people volunteering for experiments who happen to be on death row. Anyone can volunteer for experimentation so of course deathrow inmates could too.

 

[crimson sickle2]

When I rise to power I actually considered creating this option for death-row candidates. As long as I can experiment on them, they get to live. Cave Johnson, we're done here.

 

[Madara XIII]

No, never.
No one should ever ask this question.
You might as well just ask if you can fly if you drink maple syrup, for as much credibility as that has.
I see no reason to even debate whether or not we should we should have a death row in the first place.
The answer is no, and I can't see why anyone needs to debate this.
I understand why people might disagree, but I can also understand why people might think the moon is made of cheese.
I'm not going to tell people what to think, but sometimes facts need to be facts and morals need to be solid.

Not to be an ass, but Morals change over time and honestly its not as immoral as when said convict raped a child or mother, maybe even butchered or killed someone with no remorse.

However such things as this could help the progress of medical research. Secondly they are required to give their consent to be tested on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes Morals get in the way of progress and research and if this human is truly guilty and willing to donate whatever life they have for science then I say, "Why the Hell not? You're death will at least mean something now".

Am I a cruel person for this? Possibly, but I like to look at the big picture.

 

[Killertje]

If they want to. I imagine we can even incentivise it with better accomodations/food for the inmates if they choose to participate.

 

[SadakoMoose]

No, never.
No one should ever ask this question.
You might as well just ask if you can fly if you drink maple syrup, for as much credibility as that has.
I see no reason to even debate whether or not we should we should have a death row in the first place.
The answer is no, and I can't see why anyone needs to debate this.
I understand why people might disagree, but I can also understand why people might think the moon is made of cheese.
I'm not going to tell people what to think, but sometimes facts need to be facts and morals need to be solid.

Not to be an ass, but Morals change over time and honestly its not as immoral as when said convict raped a child or mother, maybe even butchered or killed someone with no remorse.

However such things as this could help the progress of medical research. Secondly they are required to give their consent to be tested on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes Morals get in the way of progress and research and if this human is truly guilty and willing to donate whatever life they have for science then I say, "Why the Hell not? You're death will at least mean something now".

Am I a cruel person for this? Possibly, but I like to look at the big picture.

Nice trollface, but what does Bleach have to do with this?
I'm not saying that any one thing is more or less immoral than another.
Are the above mention crimes terrible? Yes, and far worse than just killing one guy that nobody really likes.
But it's still wrong to kill that one guy.
Besides, little can be reaped from human experimentation that can't be reaped from modern day computer simulations and other forms of controlled research.
The progress we could make is so minimal, it's not worth butchering anyone over.
Besides, you've never seen the eyes of horror before.
It's terrible, watching somebody pass away with fear in their eyes, in my case after an accident. (the EMT's had not arrived yet)
It's like a black stain that haunts you for a while, and then only goes away for stretches of time.
I would prefer it if people measured out their actions better in future, as to avoid unnecessary instances of this.
I have the strangest belief that world gets better in proportion to our ability to decrease the level of horror in the world.
This does not apply to fiction, of course.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Given that Death Row has proven to be ineffective for over 120 cases exclusively from DNA evidence, I would say no.

Given that even if you are found innocent, there are some states where you still need to be pardoned by the governor before you leave death row, and they can't all be bothered with it. Even if they win the Republican primary and have it used against them as a presidential candidate.

 

[Syzygy23]

Basically, you want to torture them for years before eventually ending their misery by putting them down when they are of no more use to you? That is of course, if the experiments don't kill them first. Or at least leave them horribly disfigured, sick and in pain. These people who, as you said, may or may not be innocent would involuntarily be subjected to dangerous, life-threatening tests even though they were already suffering for their crimes in prison and were close to paying the ultimate price anyway.


There's something I don't agree with there, I just can't quite put my finger on it.

It's hard to identify a serial child rapist/murderer as a "Person".

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Why is this even a question to consider?

No they should not, there are some things that aren't up for debate. Human rights are named as such because they apply to all humans. ALL. If we take a murderer and torture and kill him for experiments in the style of Dr Vannacut then we are as bad as the murderer, if not worse...

There are some godawful nasty people in this world but we shouldn't sink to their level.

 

[dave1004]

Yes, I would support this. You have to do some pretty bad stuff to get on the death row. Hell, there was a guy who had molested and raped over 20 children in his BASEMENT for about three years, and he was only put away for 18 years. So, yeah. If they're on the death row, they should die.

 

[Madara XIII]

No, never.
No one should ever ask this question.
You might as well just ask if you can fly if you drink maple syrup, for as much credibility as that has.
I see no reason to even debate whether or not we should we should have a death row in the first place.
The answer is no, and I can't see why anyone needs to debate this.
I understand why people might disagree, but I can also understand why people might think the moon is made of cheese.
I'm not going to tell people what to think, but sometimes facts need to be facts and morals need to be solid.

Not to be an ass, but Morals change over time and honestly its not as immoral as when said convict raped a child or mother, maybe even butchered or killed someone with no remorse.

However such things as this could help the progress of medical research. Secondly they are required to give their consent to be tested on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes Morals get in the way of progress and research and if this human is truly guilty and willing to donate whatever life they have for science then I say, "Why the Hell not? You're death will at least mean something now".

Am I a cruel person for this? Possibly, but I like to look at the big picture.

Nice trollface, but what does Bleach have to do with this?
I'm not saying that any one thing is more or less immoral than another.
Are the above mention crimes terrible? Yes, and far worse than just killing one guy that nobody really likes.
But it's still wrong to kill that one guy.
Besides, little can be reaped from human experimentation that can't be reaped from modern day computer simulations and other forms of controlled research.
The progress we could make is so minimal, it's not worth butchering anyone over.
Besides, you've never seen the eyes of horror before.
It's terrible, watching somebody pass away with fear in their eyes, in my case after an accident. (the EMT's had not arrived yet)
It's like a black stain that haunts you for a while, and then only goes away for stretches of time.
I would prefer it if people measured out their actions better in future, as to avoid unnecessary instances of this.
I have the strangest belief that world gets better in proportion to our ability to decrease the level of horror in the world.
This does not apply to fiction, of course.

You are correct that I have thankfully not witnessed someone dying in such a manner. The worst that's happened was to watch a man get shot in the head while driving home and crash next door. But the way you explained yours is indeed powerful and that is something I can only hope I never have to witness.
Simulations can only do so much imo. Secondly that Picture is basically just Mayuri. No trolling intended.
I do however respect your moral convictions upon listening to your reasons and I wish no ill will towards you just because we do not see eye to eye.

"I have the strangest belief that world gets better in proportion to our ability to decrease the level of horror in the world."

If only I could believe in such a thing. If only.
But I hold a different truth

My Truth:
You gentlemen who think you have a mission
To purge us of the seven deadly sins
Should first sort out the basic food position
Then start your preaching, that?s where it begins

You lot who preach restraint and watch your waist as well
Should learn, for once, the way the world is run
However much you twist or whatever lies that you tell
Food is the first thing, morals follow on

So first make sure that those who are now starving
Get proper helpings when we all start carving
What keeps mankind alive?

What keeps mankind alive?
The fact that millions are daily tortured
Stifled, punished, silenced and oppressed
Mankind can keep alive thanks to its brilliance
In keeping its humanity repressed
And for once you must try not to shriek the facts
Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts

 

[Rule Britannia]

Honestly It's a good idea, if they have admitted to their wicked and terrible crimes and are going to be killed anyway then yes tests should be operated on them when others are unwilling. However if it turns out to be 'testing' the new tazers the military where recently supplied then it's cruel and should be happening.

 

[Hatiras]

if they agree to it

 

[SadakoMoose]

No, never.
No one should ever ask this question.
You might as well just ask if you can fly if you drink maple syrup, for as much credibility as that has.
I see no reason to even debate whether or not we should we should have a death row in the first place.
The answer is no, and I can't see why anyone needs to debate this.
I understand why people might disagree, but I can also understand why people might think the moon is made of cheese.
I'm not going to tell people what to think, but sometimes facts need to be facts and morals need to be solid.

Not to be an ass, but Morals change over time and honestly its not as immoral as when said convict raped a child or mother, maybe even butchered or killed someone with no remorse.

However such things as this could help the progress of medical research. Secondly they are required to give their consent to be tested on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes Morals get in the way of progress and research and if this human is truly guilty and willing to donate whatever life they have for science then I say, "Why the Hell not? You're death will at least mean something now".

Am I a cruel person for this? Possibly, but I like to look at the big picture.

Nice trollface, but what does Bleach have to do with this?
I'm not saying that any one thing is more or less immoral than another.
Are the above mention crimes terrible? Yes, and far worse than just killing one guy that nobody really likes.
But it's still wrong to kill that one guy.
Besides, little can be reaped from human experimentation that can't be reaped from modern day computer simulations and other forms of controlled research.
The progress we could make is so minimal, it's not worth butchering anyone over.
Besides, you've never seen the eyes of horror before.
It's terrible, watching somebody pass away with fear in their eyes, in my case after an accident. (the EMT's had not arrived yet)
It's like a black stain that haunts you for a while, and then only goes away for stretches of time.
I would prefer it if people measured out their actions better in future, as to avoid unnecessary instances of this.
I have the strangest belief that world gets better in proportion to our ability to decrease the level of horror in the world.
This does not apply to fiction, of course.

You are correct that I have thankfully not witnessed someone dying in such a manner. The worst that's happened was to watch a man get shot in the head while driving home and crash next door. But the way you explained yours is indeed powerful and that is something I can only hope I never have to witness.
Simulations can only do so much imo. Secondly that Picture is basically just Mayuri. No trolling intended.
I do however respect your moral convictions upon listening to your reasons and I wish no ill will towards you just because we do not see eye to eye.

"I have the strangest belief that world gets better in proportion to our ability to decrease the level of horror in the world."

If only I could believe in such a thing. If only.
But I hold a different truth

My Truth:
You gentlemen who think you have a mission
To purge us of the seven deadly sins
Should first sort out the basic food position
Then start your preaching, that?s where it begins

You lot who preach restraint and watch your waist as well
Should learn, for once, the way the world is run
However much you twist or whatever lies that you tell
Food is the first thing, morals follow on

So first make sure that those who are now starving
Get proper helpings when we all start carving
What keeps mankind alive?

What keeps mankind alive?
The fact that millions are daily tortured
Stifled, punished, silenced and oppressed
Mankind can keep alive thanks to its brilliance
In keeping its humanity repressed
And for once you must try not to shriek the facts
Mankind is kept alive by bestial acts

I'm not sure where that poem came from.
I'm guessing an Englishman.
They tend to just cue up and bear it when trouble hits.
I don't really see how those acts keep mankind alive...
Unlike, let's say the works of scientist Norman Borlaug or economists like John Maynard Keynes, or politicians like Lyndon Banes Johnson (who, despite what hippies say, was able to get billions for education and civil rights reform.).
Statistically speaking, the homicide rates haven't been this low since the 1950's, and the number of people who can read has been higher than ever.

I'm not saying that certain terrible action haven't resulted in good things, before.
Without the Blitz and WW2 to cause Britain to re-assess it's status as "empire" we wouldn't have had modern Britain.
Think about it:
Pre War Britain: British Raj, Hangings, Forced Sterilization of Gays, No Social Medicine, and causing the 2nd world war (with France's help) by being a dick to Germany during the end of the first one (against the advice of The US government).
Post war Britain: Free India, NHS, Roy Jenkins, Dr. Who
Coincidence?

Even a handful of Nazi doctors made some important findings about pneumonia.
Of course, these were findings that would have been made without the Holocaust, but history is set in stone.

Never the less, I don't see any real advantages to mankind that can be caused PURPOSEFULLY by "bestial" acts.
Far as I've seen, the world only ever seems to be getting better, every day because of man's natural group survival instinct.
This can be seen by people ranging from those believe that man is merely a biological machine, designed only to carry it's historical legacy of DNA or those who believe we carry a higher and intangible purpose with us by virtue of intelligence or some other factor that has made us the most capable species on the planet.
As we are now able to see the world in it's entirety, due to our advances in communication and transport, we now know that we belong to a larger group, and are coming to slowly understand the importance of mutually assured survival despite cultural, economic and geographic disparities.
The human being, now more than ever, must realize he is part of a single great tribe that can only stand to flourish as it unites toward it's most common goal.
Simple existence.
And I seriously don't see "bestial" acts such as the one listed in the OP as being a major part of that movement forward.

 

[The Lost Big Boss]

Yes, because everyone on death row is completely guilty, and in know way could possibly be falsely accused. Not to mention that it is completely ethical to do experimentation on people, ripping away their human rights. Yea, lets do this.

 

[nstalaat]

Of course they should be given the freedom to opt into medical testing. While they're given that freedom, allow them to opt into tests more invasive or involved than the average medical trial. Given they are on death row and providing consent to experimentation, you have the PERFECT test subject. Here you have a man (or woman) who's every activity is strictly scheduled and observed on a daily basis for the remainder of their lives. What you lose in sheer volume of test subjects you gain in the reliability of the data due to the high degree of control over the volunteers' environments.

Also, as mentioned by others, it provides a way for the willing to redeem themselves through contribution to society.