Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?
- Thread starter zerobudgetgamer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Should death row inmates be used for experiments?"
If they give their consent, then I see no reason why not. I was actually under the impression that this sort of thing was already being done... ah well. They could probably be rewarded with small concessions in return for their services (i.e. a small television for their cell, better food, etc.).
I also agree with your take on the second edit, so there's no need to comment further on that.
Edit: I was actually taken aback by all the comments suggesting that this sort of thing would be done without consent, or that the experiments would be exclusively of the immediately lethal variety. Not all experimentation is medical, you know. There's a multitude of cognitive, psychological, or even physiological tests relating to stress/stimulation that could also be implemented. And if a prisoner faced with capital punishment chooses to take part in a potentially lethal experiment (which I'll assume is already under strict safety requirements and ethical review) of their own volition, who am I to say no?
If they give their consent, then I see no reason why not. I was actually under the impression that this sort of thing was already being done... ah well. They could probably be rewarded with small concessions in return for their services (i.e. a small television for their cell, better food, etc.).
I also agree with your take on the second edit, so there's no need to comment further on that.
Edit: I was actually taken aback by all the comments suggesting that this sort of thing would be done without consent, or that the experiments would be exclusively of the immediately lethal variety. Not all experimentation is medical, you know. There's a multitude of cognitive, psychological, or even physiological tests relating to stress/stimulation that could also be implemented. And if a prisoner faced with capital punishment chooses to take part in a potentially lethal experiment (which I'll assume is already under strict safety requirements and ethical review) of their own volition, who am I to say no?
No. That essentially amounts to torture, which I'm against. That said, there are some pretty potent arguments in favour of this, so I can certainly respect your opinion.
For instance:
What makes it right to experiment on innocent animals, but not upon murderous humans?
How do we justify animal experimentation? By saying that it benefits humanity. We often talk about ex-prisoners as having paid their debts to society - could this not be another method by which that might happen?
Shit like that. Personally, the main reason I'm against it is that experimenting on other species, while not necessarily right, isn't as creepp, and doesn't set the same precedents that experimenting on our own species does. Although I could imaging being pretty pissed off were I a rabbit.
Just one thing to note, as the poster above me stated, that medical experiments don't necessarily imply anything painful or dangerous.
Oh, and while I'm typing, another thing.
Whether or not you think that this is right comes down in part to what you believe prison should be: A place for rehabilitation, or one of punishment. Personally, I think that rehabilitation is the more important aspect, and, as such, medical experiments become unjustifiable. That said, it leaves the tricky issue of what to do with people who have non-negotiable life sentences or, over in the States, the death penalty. If we decide that they are beyond rehabilitation, then where does that leave us in the whole debate?
For instance:
What makes it right to experiment on innocent animals, but not upon murderous humans?
How do we justify animal experimentation? By saying that it benefits humanity. We often talk about ex-prisoners as having paid their debts to society - could this not be another method by which that might happen?
Shit like that. Personally, the main reason I'm against it is that experimenting on other species, while not necessarily right, isn't as creepp, and doesn't set the same precedents that experimenting on our own species does. Although I could imaging being pretty pissed off were I a rabbit.
Just one thing to note, as the poster above me stated, that medical experiments don't necessarily imply anything painful or dangerous.
Oh, and while I'm typing, another thing.
Whether or not you think that this is right comes down in part to what you believe prison should be: A place for rehabilitation, or one of punishment. Personally, I think that rehabilitation is the more important aspect, and, as such, medical experiments become unjustifiable. That said, it leaves the tricky issue of what to do with people who have non-negotiable life sentences or, over in the States, the death penalty. If we decide that they are beyond rehabilitation, then where does that leave us in the whole debate?
No, there isn't.Gottesstrafe said:
The sample would be methodologically unsound. Again, this isn't 19th century criminology where we all assume that prisoners have some kind of genetic predisposition which makes them violent (a predisposition which suspiciously always had a lot to do with the colour of their skin and the curliness of their hair).
You're not going to find anything useful from a sample which is selected on an incredibly rare occurance dependent on a huge number of factors. Well.. you could try, but noone is going to take anything you say seriously.
I think you assume wrong.Gottesstrafe said:
You're not going to get some wholesome tenured professor single handedly pioneering a new cancer drug from his university science lab and who just needs to experiment on one guy to make it all happen.
You're going to hand several hundred people at once over to a medical corporation (the people who actually do medical research nowadays) and you're damn right you 'assume' it's all ethical because they're paying a big fat contract to the local government for the privilege of that assumption.
Of course, they're not going to tell you what actually happens because they want the patents which will come out of it, because that's how they make money.
No, the fact this was in the back of your mind is worrying in its self but just because someone is going to die, doesn't make them any less of a human being. Yes I'm aware you have to do something pretty bad to get sent to death row but they're still a human, there is very little else I can say, a large part of me wants to call you sick in the head but I don't want to turn this into a flame war.
On a side note if there was a way for them to opt into a system like this, that's better, but forcing someone into being a science experiment just because they're about to die and they're a criminal is sick
On a side note if there was a way for them to opt into a system like this, that's better, but forcing someone into being a science experiment just because they're about to die and they're a criminal is sick
The idea is excellent but there should be a line drawn somewhere. Rather than just anyone on death row, serial killers, rapist, murderers, paedophiles, sex offenders, Fred Phelps. And dont just make it death row make it prisoner filling those qualifications. There are so many people deserving torture. In Australia we have a guy called von Einem who I personally would love to see be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not a sadist I just love to see people get whats coming to them.
Sure, anyone should be able to consent to any kind of experiment as long as they're properly informed, of sound mind, and not being forced into it (which is slightly redundant but still need to be stated.)
You mean the murders he was never actually convicted of?Darkguy89 said:
You shouldn't have asked me to read. I actually do.
If this is the most fitting candidate for state torture you can come up with I don't think you've made your case. He was convicted of one murder, a horrible murder but a murder nonetheless. Why should the state stoop to the same level?
On a cursory reading, it sounds like he should be detained in a secure psychiatric ward rather than a general prison, but really.. this isn't the middle ages, we're a little past public torture in the town square.
why are the lines so long, hey hand me a 9mm, look the other way and ill have 15 done in a jiffy.
We wouldn't be testing on Jews who haven't lifted a finger to anyone.Togs said:
People on Death Row tend to have gotten there for a reason, hard as that is to believe. (Though admittedly, there is a very large amount of people who shouldn't have been put there in the first place)
Nope, not because of some misguided morality that they are still people. My reason is that some of them may be found innocent before being killed. They would then be stuck with the effects of said experimentation. Plus theres the whole lawsuit thing and the idea of cruel and unusual punishment.
Absolutely not! Considering that capital punishment itself is a practice reserved for barbaric nations, experimentation on humans should not be allowed on any group of people that would be inclined to do it. That means inmates, students, the poor, the homeless or anyone really. If science is not guided by ethics it is worth absolutely fuck all. If a scientist feels the need to experiment on somebody, they should experiment on themselves and noone else.