Should Death Row Inmates Be Used for Experiments?

[maninahat]

In regards to the OPS recent edits, I think there already is an option for inmates to submit themselves to experimentation if they wish, though I can't be certain. Even if that isn't the case, I don't see the point of introducing that system seeing as how we already provide opportunities for ordinary members of the public to offer themselves up for experimentation.

Alright, let us try a different avenue. Is it right that prisoners should be made to work long hours without receiving a minimum wage? America, for instance, specifically refuses to accept imports made by slave labour (no, sweat shops don't count and no, it isn't anything like slave labour), yet the country is heavily reliant on prison labour. Prisoners work many hours for only a tiny wage. As prisoners, they have no choice in the matter. The US prisoners manufacture a huge number of products for the public - is that not slave labour? Is that ethical? At what point does a punishment shift from justice to exploitation?

 

[Zeetchmen]

I think they should be used as gladiators personally, would be fun \o/

 

[ImprovizoR]

There should be no death row.

 

[Brad Calkins]

Just not the ones that are expected to create supervillains, you know they're coming

 

[Ren3004]

Should they? No. Do I mind if they are? Not at all, assuming it's voluntary.

Actually, it would be an interesting idea, letting criminals perform some sort of community service in exchange for a lighter sentence. This, of course, after they've served a good part of it and are deemed fit to leave the prison for a bit.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

I'm against the death penalty in the first place, but even so... No.

Just because they're prisoners, doesn't mean they're not people. That sort of logic is used in chinese sweatshops looking for free labour.

What if they consent. Like in terminator salvation but without the skynet. You are going to die and you can potentially make one last meaningful contribution to science. I would donate myself in an instant as long as there was no/little pain involved.

 

[Stalydan]

This has been a thought that's rested at the back of my head for quite a while now, and suddenly came back to bite hard at me today. If you've never seen the series Full Metal Alchemist, there's an episode where they enter a supposedly empty research facility and find that it's not only in full operation, but that they've been using inmates from a next-door corrections facility to perform experiments. As draconian as this may sound, it's nonetheless an interestingly controversial subject to consider.

Most death row inmates, AFAIK, have no chance of parole, and sit in their cells for years waiting for their own personally sterilized lethal injection (ironic). Now, while some of these inmates are possibly innocent, most have probably openly admitted to performing unspeakable acts that they cannot or will not possibly atone for within their lifetimes. What I'm wondering is, could we not use these inmates for various experiments, such as testing cures for diseases or maybe just using them for incredibly dangerous procedures a la Aperture Science? Obviously, all necessary measures would have to be taken to ensure the safety of those involved, and to make sure the inmate can't escape.

IMO, these are people who are just taking up space in prisons across the country/world. If we really intend to kill them, why not make their deaths meaningful/beneficial in some way?

EDIT: OK, for the record, I'm not insisting we go out right now and take some of the people on the back of the line of death row, kicking and screaming, and inject them with a dozen diseases "For Science." Obviously, consents would have to be given, considerations would have to be made, and some laws would have to be changed. My point is they're not going anywhere, and appeals aside some death row inmates are simply sitting because the line is massive and they only go through so many injections a day. Again, they're going to be killed anyway, so why not give their deaths some meaning?

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.

I don't mind it. It's good use of them rather than just keeping them in a cell for years. It's practical and if they are kept safe then it's not morally wrong either.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

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.

Well, to be quite honest, I don't really know where one goes to find positions available in medical testing; doesn't exactly sound like something you could just go to CareerBuilder and search for, though I'd be surprised if you really could. What I'm proposing, I guess, is having those options clearly spelled out for them, kinda like a job board in the middle of the grounds or something. For Death Row inmates, they'd be "hand-selected" certain positions that need testers but have somewhat higher risks. Again, it may seem morbid to purposefully put them into these sorts of tests, but if they're going to be killed anyway, better as a guinea pig than with just another vial of poison.

In regards to the OPS revent edits, I think there already is an option for inmates to submit themselves to experimentation if they wish, though I can't be certain. Even if that isn't the case, I don't see the point of introducing that system seeing as how we already provide opportunities for ordinary members of the public to offer themselves up for experimentation.

Alright, let us try a different avenue. Is it right that prisoners should be made to work long hours without receiving a minimum wage? America, for instance, specifically refuses to accept imports made by slave labour (no, sweat shops don't count and no, it isn't anything like slave labour), yet the country is heavily reliant on prison labour. Prisoners work many hours for only a tiny wage. As prisoners, they have no choice in the matter. The US prisoners manufacture a huge number of products for the public - is that not slave labour? Is that ethical? At what point does a punishment shift from justice to exploitation?

Well, I can't say I know much about the prison system, so if there's already a system, then my bad for thinking there wasn't, but as for "forced" labor, well, can you think of a better alternative?

These are people who have been sentenced to several years in prison, which is a place where all you do is eat, sleep, sh*t, and walk around a gravel pit for a couple hours a day, maybe do a bit of weight lifting or ball playing depending on what the prison supplies you. The whole concept of prison labor was an excuse to give these lazing louts something productive to do, to help pay for the meals they eat and the utilities that power their new "homes." They lost their entitlement to a regular wage when they committed the crime that got them in there, so it's only natural that, when they're allowed to leave the prison and go work somewhere, that they not be paid a regular wage. While I will agree that it's a fine line the current system is walking across, it's hardly exploitation if you're utilizing man-hours that would otherwise go unused in the prisons.

 

[TheAbominableDan]

Just the other day a guy who had been on death row for I think 18 years was released. Because he wasn't guilty.

What if that guy had been subjected to medical experiments for 18 years? Imagine how awful that would be. Even if he was guilty it would have been awful, but for those who are in favour of this. Just think about that.

 

[xXGeckoXx]

I think they should be used as gladiators personally, would be fun \o/

I feel a little sick...but I agree. Sometimes I feel that we have too many morals about prisoners who are guilty. The only reason I say that we should not have experiments and gladiator fights is that our justice systems are so shit that we have no clue whether or not we are condemning innocent people or not. However I want to see the people from the pol pot administration fight to he death against tigers.

 

[Cenequus]

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.

Well, to be quite honest, I don't really know where one goes to find positions available in medical testing; doesn't exactly sound like something you could just go to CareerBuilder and search for, though I'd be surprised if you really could. What I'm proposing, I guess, is having those options clearly spelled out for them, kinda like a job board in the middle of the grounds or something. For Death Row inmates, they'd be "hand-selected" certain positions that need testers but have somewhat higher risks. Again, it may seem morbid to purposefully put them into these sorts of tests, but if they're going to be killed anyway, better as a guinea pig than with just another vial of poison.

Uhm internet like everybody else?

Also I don't know from which country you are but in Eu+Na pharmaceutical industries are private not public. Sure there are rules ethical andnot on what they are allowed to develop and test but beyond that you can't tell them what to do and to who.

Also yes there are job boards for convicts,inside the prison facility for high risk ones to even 9-5 for low risk ones. Of course they are more limited in general and even absent in many facilities but they are allowed. Thing is a private(company/corporatio etc) has to hire them which as you know they rarelly do even when they are out of prison.

 

[Tufty94]

Despite what the world would have you think, killing is what we humans do best. I have no problem with this as long as it's voluntarily.

 

[drosalion]

I dont really believe in the death penalty, but if one is in place i see no reason not to put the inmates to good use, as OP is suggesting.

 

[Iggy Rufflebar]

if they ARE guilty of their crimes they are scum and deserve nothing but the most painful death possible, sure, why not a little experimentation?

 

[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.

 

[zerobudgetgamer]

Well, to be quite honest, I don't really know where one goes to find positions available in medical testing; doesn't exactly sound like something you could just go to CareerBuilder and search for, though I'd be surprised if you really could. What I'm proposing, I guess, is having those options clearly spelled out for them, kinda like a job board in the middle of the grounds or something. For Death Row inmates, they'd be "hand-selected" certain positions that need testers but have somewhat higher risks. Again, it may seem morbid to purposefully put them into these sorts of tests, but if they're going to be killed anyway, better as a guinea pig than with just another vial of poison.

Uhm internet like everybody else?

Also I don't know from which country you are but in Eu+Na pharmaceutical industries are private not public. Sure there are rules ethical andnot on what they are allowed to develop and test but beyond that you can't tell them what to do and to who.

Also yes there are job boards for convicts,inside the prison facility for high risk ones to even 9-5 for low risk ones. Of course they are more limited in general and even absent in many facilities but they are allowed. Thing is a private(company/corporatio etc) has to hire them which as you know they rarelly do even when they are out of prison.

U.S., California, and I'm sure someone's going to make a base judgement on me just from that.

Alright, then, I guess what I'm proposing is just having it accessible in all facilities. I'm not even sure anymore. My initial thought process focused only on Death Row Inmates, or simply people who had no chance of re-entering society, so I felt some Life-Term convicts applied to that definition as well. I'm obviously not concerned about people who are only serving a couple of years or who are trying to get out of jail early on good behavior. My concern more lies in the people that we KNOW are guilty, who will NEVER be considered innocent, no matter how many appeals they go through, and/or who will spend so long in jail or on death row because of the slow processes of the legal system that they, themselves, may want some other option, something to bring some meaning into their lives while they sit and rot in jail. Maybe I'm missing a screw somewhere in my logic, but that was where my initial thoughts were going with this.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

If they're going to die anyway I don't see why not. They don't want to play by the rules and break the laws then so be it. Let them help humanity.

BEFORE YOU CRUCIFY ME! I think it would be in everyone's best interest to wait until the inmate has been killed before experimentation begins. There are a lot of things science can do to human cadavers.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18642_the-6-greatest-things-accomplished-by-dead-bodies.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16858_the-6-coolest-things-you-can-do-with-your-dead-body.html

 

[corneth]

Dude, ever heard of Josef Mengele? The Angel of Death? That's why we can't do tests on prisoners. There is a difference between convenience and logic, and evil, and testing death row prisoners, is crossing it.

 

[Sethzard]

Personally I support testing on them. I don't exactly support the death penalty, but if they are definitely going to die then why not use their bodies for sceince they gave up most of their rights when they did whatever got them put there in the first place.

 

[Cenequus]

Well, to be quite honest, I don't really know where one goes to find positions available in medical testing; doesn't exactly sound like something you could just go to CareerBuilder and search for, though I'd be surprised if you really could. What I'm proposing, I guess, is having those options clearly spelled out for them, kinda like a job board in the middle of the grounds or something. For Death Row inmates, they'd be "hand-selected" certain positions that need testers but have somewhat higher risks. Again, it may seem morbid to purposefully put them into these sorts of tests, but if they're going to be killed anyway, better as a guinea pig than with just another vial of poison.

Uhm internet like everybody else?

Also I don't know from which country you are but in Eu+Na pharmaceutical industries are private not public. Sure there are rules ethical andnot on what they are allowed to develop and test but beyond that you can't tell them what to do and to who.

Also yes there are job boards for convicts,inside the prison facility for high risk ones to even 9-5 for low risk ones. Of course they are more limited in general and even absent in many facilities but they are allowed. Thing is a private(company/corporatio etc) has to hire them which as you know they rarelly do even when they are out of prison.

U.S., California, and I'm sure someone's going to make a base judgement on me just from that.

Alright, then, I guess what I'm proposing is just having it accessible in all facilities. I'm not even sure anymore, talking with you. My initial thought process focused only on Death Row Inmates, or simply people who had no chance of re-entering society, so I felt some Life-Term convicts applied to that definition as well. I'm obviously not concerned about people who are only serving a couple of years or who are trying to get out of jail early on good behavior. My concern more lies in the people that we KNOW are guilty, who will NEVER be considered innocent, no matter how many appeals they go through, and/or who will spend so long in jail or on death row because of the slow processes of the legal system that they, themselves, may want some other option, something to bring some meaning into their lives while they sit and rot in jail. Maybe I'm missing a screw somewhere in my logic, but that was where my initial thoughts were going with this.

Hey it's not to me too judge how wrong death penalty is even as a concept so I won't go there. Even at the slow rate countries like US/China etc have on stopping death penalty eventually they will have to adjust to the rest of the "civilized world".

Anywho since you said you lost you initial thought,it all comes to that person's choice. But as I said when a company tests a medicine or any product they need to have access and control to many aspects of your life during the testing period,to assure the results aren't flawed. I doubt you can have easy access to someone who is in death row, so it's their choice not to even consider having that type of convict in their programs.