I'd tend to say no. They have equal rights to other people, regardless of their crimes.
They could volunteer, if they so choosed. But it would seem imprudent to have a test subject slated for death.
Even when some seem downright wicked, subjecting them to painful tests seems to be an act of emotion. Subjective.
It's an act of anger.
In addition to that, there may be falsely convicted and repentful people on death row.
Why make them suffer more?
We're not doing this to make them suffer. We're not doing this out of revenge or sadistic lust. This kind of experimentation can help further medical science, can help test out things that could potentially save thousands if it works. If that means that we have to test out the chemicals on people who are convicted of doing crimes so bad that they are slated for death, then I have no qualms with sacrificing their life to save a hundred others.
We're not doing this to make them suffer. We're not doing this out of revenge or sadistic lust. This kind of experimentation can help further medical science, can help test out things that could potentially save thousands if it works. If that means that we have to test out the chemicals on people who are convicted of doing crimes so bad that they are slated for death, then I have no qualms with sacrificing their life to save a hundred others.
But would you enact the same experiments for another person?
What do you mean? Perform the experiments on a person not convicted of some felony? No, I wouldn't.
I mean, why would you? The person who committed a crime, I personally think they have no life anyways. They're going to get out of jail, and do it again. Might as well use them for something useful.
What do you mean? Perform the experiments on a person not convicted of some felony? No, I wouldn't.
My point is that by experimenting on them rather than other people, you're trivalizing the lives of inmates because of their crimes.
It seems immoral to do so.
I do understand the "one life to save more", but in the end it's grey morality.
I mean, why would you? The person who committed a crime, I personally think they have no life anyways. They're going to get out of jail, and do it again. Might as well use them for something useful.
The point isn't to do this on random criminals in jail for stealing a car. Those people can choose to not do it again, because in the end, they just stole a car. I'm talking about Death Row inmates. About people that raped people, that killed families and children. Not someone that robbed a liquor store.
My point is that by experimenting on them rather than other people, you're trivalizing the lives of inmates because of their crimes.
It seems immoral to do so.
I do understand the "one life to save more", but in the end it's grey morality.
Their lives can hold a lot more meaning through these experiments than them sitting around waiting for the day they die. Instead of having them do nothing, contribute nothing to the society that they have harmed, I want to give them an opportunity to potentially save thousands of lives. To potentially improve the life style of everyone in the country they harmed.
The point isn't to do this on random criminals in jail for stealing a car. Those people can choose to not do it again, because in the end, they just stole a car. I'm talking about Death Row inmates. About people that raped people, that killed families and children. Not someone that robbed a liquor store.
Yes, I know that. I meant people that did murders, rape, that kind of stuff. Stealing a car isn't death-worthy. Or torture-worthy, for that matter.
Yes. They did something horrible to get on death row. Time to pay the favor, and we get benefits! :smile.gif: 100% agree for experiments, for science!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I suppose I could riff a list of things that I care as little about your post. Lemme see, uhh…. Low-carb diets. Michael Moore. The Republican National Convention. Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products. Hi-def TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, ‘The O.C.’, the U.N., recycling, getting Punk’d, Danny Gans, the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys. Jeff, that Wiggle who sleeps too darn much! The Yankees payroll, all the red states, all the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host! Everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, everything everything everything everything everything everything–eve–everything that exists — past, present and future, in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh! And Hugh Jackman.
my observations are the same, many Americans seem to have a hard time understanding the bill of human rights, which is funny since America is so famous for upholding their constitution no matter what...
Right and like any right a person has the ability to waive it. You can waive your right to an attorney by saying so. You can waive your basic human rights by murdering or raping or kidnapping or torturing.
And the part of 'Merrica that you refer to, is to letter of the law to have any real morality or useful effect in the modern day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look it's big red text!
Now that being said. Ponies.
We're not doing this to make them suffer. We're not doing this out of revenge or sadistic lust. This kind of experimentation can help further medical science, can help test out things that could potentially save thousands if it works. If that means that we have to test out the chemicals on people who are convicted of doing crimes so bad that they are slated for death, then I have no qualms with sacrificing their life to save a hundred others.
But would you enact the same experiments for another person?
What do you mean? Perform the experiments on a person not convicted of some felony? No, I wouldn't.
I mean, why would you? The person who committed a crime, I personally think they have no life anyways. They're going to get out of jail, and do it again. Might as well use them for something useful.
Steam: RobotDeathParty
My point is that by experimenting on them rather than other people, you're trivalizing the lives of inmates because of their crimes.
It seems immoral to do so.
I do understand the "one life to save more", but in the end it's grey morality.
The point isn't to do this on random criminals in jail for stealing a car. Those people can choose to not do it again, because in the end, they just stole a car. I'm talking about Death Row inmates. About people that raped people, that killed families and children. Not someone that robbed a liquor store.
Their lives can hold a lot more meaning through these experiments than them sitting around waiting for the day they die. Instead of having them do nothing, contribute nothing to the society that they have harmed, I want to give them an opportunity to potentially save thousands of lives. To potentially improve the life style of everyone in the country they harmed.
I hardly see that as immoral.
Yes, I know that. I meant people that did murders, rape, that kind of stuff. Stealing a car isn't death-worthy. Or torture-worthy, for that matter.
Steam: RobotDeathParty
Except the ones who are dead.
But, Theres no scence in crying over every mistake.
But i support!
Haven't we as a race evolved beyond these petty morals?
Inmates should be honored to give their lives for science!
I see using criminals to be much more cost effective than just feeding them until it's needle time...
CheersBros at: Click here!
Morals are petty? I think you have some serious problem if you think morals are unneeded.
Right and like any right a person has the ability to waive it. You can waive your right to an attorney by saying so. You can waive your basic human rights by murdering or raping or kidnapping or torturing.
And the part of 'Merrica that you refer to, is to letter of the law to have any real morality or useful effect in the modern day.
Now that being said. Ponies.