Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?
- Thread starter zerobudgetgamer
- Start date
To be fair, there's a big difference between experimenting on death row inmates and prisoners of an internment camp/POWs.evilthecat said:Congratulations, you are now on the moral level of this man:
The former involves using those who have committed some form of atrocity, in such a manner or suitably lacking in remorse for society to say they're not worthy of continued life. The latter involves grabbing random people off the street and fiddling with them.
Personally, I don't see the OP's idea as inherently bad or evil. The inmates of death row made one or more choices that put them in that position. It's their fault they are there, and it's not terribly hard to stay out of death row. I see nothing wrong with making use of them while they sit around taking up resources.
If they're alright with it, abso-freaking-lutely.
No logical reason not to.
Same with people facing true life sentences. Let them opt into the testing, the alternative being some nice forced labor or something.
Whatever happened to chain gangs? Let's get stuff like that back in, after we legalize marijuana and stuff like that that should totally be legal.
No logical reason not to.
Same with people facing true life sentences. Let them opt into the testing, the alternative being some nice forced labor or something.
Whatever happened to chain gangs? Let's get stuff like that back in, after we legalize marijuana and stuff like that that should totally be legal.
Agreed. But I feel as if death row should not exist, only for public 'white-collar' execs, who do far worse to us all than any murderer could possibly ever do. If one-tenth of the money used to house death row inmates was used for hunting corporate criminals America would be a better place, for sure.MASTACHIEFPWN said:
On paper it sounds good but what if the experiment has painful results?
Imagine the scene in the Secret of Nimh where the humans inject shit into the rats. The rats begin to suffer, but this one image is burned into my brain unfortunatly, one of the rats clutchs his stomach and wails in pain for it to stop.
Would it be right for them (The prisoners, not the rats) to suffer JUST because they were sentenced to death.
The point of the death sentence is to kill them quickly and quietly.
I see both sides of the argument but unless the subject decides to agree to the conditions, then no. It shouldn't be done.
The only upside to this what that it was done in the 1800's by the french, ending the use of the guillotine.
Imagine the scene in the Secret of Nimh where the humans inject shit into the rats. The rats begin to suffer, but this one image is burned into my brain unfortunatly, one of the rats clutchs his stomach and wails in pain for it to stop.
Would it be right for them (The prisoners, not the rats) to suffer JUST because they were sentenced to death.
The point of the death sentence is to kill them quickly and quietly.
I see both sides of the argument but unless the subject decides to agree to the conditions, then no. It shouldn't be done.
The only upside to this what that it was done in the 1800's by the french, ending the use of the guillotine.
I'm mostly opposed to this due to how many stories where super monsters come from inmate experimentations.
I was going to mention the same thing about nazi germany.Togs said:
So.. its a big no. Its barbaric, its inhumane.
"Their going to die anyway" argument doesnt work imho: we are ALL going to die eventually, would this fact alone be enough to justify being experimented on?
What if there arent enough prisonners to "feed" the experiement? Is there going to be pressure to put more people on the execution penalty? Or maybe just pick life-sentenced prisonners to fill the holes?
Who will profit from it? Are the prisonners compensated for it? What happen in case of accidents?
Are some kind of prisonners "better" or "more acceptable" to be experimented on?
What happen if evidence show that the prisonner was innocent of his crime (and yet he got experimented on)?
Because your prison system is a huge privately run corporate machine makes enormous amounts of money for its investors and beneficiaries by exploiting convict labour and your legal system is happy to procure it for them?kouriichi said:
Neither does the death penalty.kouriichi said:
Many countries without the death penalty (or with extremely limited use of the death penalty) have much lower crime rates than countries with the death penalty.
Also, if you think prison is easy then I can only suggest trying it.
And where has this happened? Where is the perfect crime free utopia where people are still hung drawn and quartered in the square?kouriichi said:
The purpose of punishing criminals is not spectacle but control and behavioural reform. You can question whether the prison is succeeding in that task and why not (my opinion, not listening to Jeremy Bentham enough) but don't try and pretend that public executions lower crime rates.
Finally, I'll ask again.. what could you learn from testing on a tiny, incredibly methodologically unsound sample?
Agayek said:
Menegle, I'm not sure. Nazi law was screwed up enough that it's likely many people in the camps were guilty of it.Therumancer said:
Also "seditious activities" was a capital offence in occupied China and South East Asia at the time. Almost all of those people unit 731 experimented on would have been executed even if they had not been sent for experimentation. If people were 'dragged off the street' it's because the Kempeitai were deliberately arresting people under false pretences, something which there is no guarantee would not happen in this case as well. Arguably, similar practices already occur in the US prison system because, as mentioned, convict labour makes a fuckton of money.
Why should the procurement of research subjects be any different? Don't beat around the bush.. medical experiments nowadays are conducted by corporations. There would be no rosy cheeked scientist advancing human progress and getting a honest cheque from the government. You'd be selling human life to a corporation for money. The more people you could provide, the more money, in fact an order of magnitude more money because, as mentioned, scientific studies need a lot of people in order to work. If you can provide two people, noone cares. If you can provide 500 or 1000, corporations will fight tooth and nail for contracts.
Do you think the justice system is above being bought? Do you even want to find out?
National law does not supercede international law. Nuremberg articles, again. A person committing a crime under national law does not vindicate violating international law by abusing them. Seriously, it was a truly admirable American who made this case and he specifically said that all nations, including his own, should be held to the same standard.. how easily that has been forgotten.
What about just donating their cadavers to medical science?
As far as I know quite a few people do it, although it might not be high up on the list as medical experimentation, it might be good for training medical students, and who knows neurologists and psychologists might have fun with their brain, seeing what made them tick
And now for all the people so start screaming about how evil we all are for wanting to further medical science, hope those people don't need it in future if that's the case :/
But I digress I don't really find this evil since I have no sympathy for these people in death row, y'know there might be a reason they're there.....
also finding a group of doctors to take this sort of thing on would be difficult since they have that oath (can't remember name) to never harm people etc. etc. Don't they lose their medical license that way? (don't know the specifics)
As far as I know quite a few people do it, although it might not be high up on the list as medical experimentation, it might be good for training medical students, and who knows neurologists and psychologists might have fun with their brain, seeing what made them tick
And now for all the people so start screaming about how evil we all are for wanting to further medical science, hope those people don't need it in future if that's the case :/
But I digress I don't really find this evil since I have no sympathy for these people in death row, y'know there might be a reason they're there.....
also finding a group of doctors to take this sort of thing on would be difficult since they have that oath (can't remember name) to never harm people etc. etc. Don't they lose their medical license that way? (don't know the specifics)
Perhaps under very specific circumstances. First this is assuming it's a country or state with a death penalty. I think only if they willingly volunteer and are fully aware of the risks and there is a reward such as reduction to life and/or possibly ascess to certain luxuries. The tests themselves would have to be subject to very strenuous ethical review.
Actually screw it, we shouldn't because this is exactly how a supervillian is created.
Actually screw it, we shouldn't because this is exactly how a supervillian is created.
"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