Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

So, for the prisoners that are sentenced to death row, life without parole, or even charged with a heinous crime, why don't we just use them as test subjects/lab rats?

They are already going to die, and there is no point in keeping them locked in prison where they will be fed, housed, and given free medicare. All they do is drain the funds out of the taxpayers pockets while we get nothing in return. Not only can we make their lives beneficial to society, but we can actually start to progress in the medical field.

The "charged with a heinous crime" thing is insane; we can't just start experimenting on people who aren't convicted.

I meant to say "convicted". My mistake.

Because of those pesky, pesky "human rights", honestly, if break the rules of civilization to that extent then you shouldn't have any rights. There's a quote I like it's "If you must break the law, do it to seize power, in all other cases observe it."

For some reason that quote reminds me of; "Of course I've gone mad with power! Have you ever tried going mad without power? It's boring, no one listens to you." 

Simpsons movie? Classic

Morality isn't always that black and white, but yeah, they may as well be doing something useful.

Y'all fuckers need Jesus. You can't start bloody experimenting on people because they're prisoners. It's barbaric. You can them them beneficial to society by changing them for the better, not forcing them to become test dummies.

Give in to the dark side...

I'd rather keep my sanity and empathy :p

I'd rather not be a Nazi.

It's not being a Nazi, this isn't based on race, religion or sexual orientation, this is based on what crimes they have comitted. It isn't discrimination, it's punishment.

I'm referring to the human experimination.

It's for medical advancement, improving the lives of law-abiding citizens.

The findings should only be used to better the lives of criminals.  If you want to improve the lives of law-abiding citizens, you need to experiment on them.  :P

I assume that is a joke.

Just checking

In light of your recent debate?

I think we both did.

Why should anyone be forced into doing something that they've clearly demonstrated by their actions that they are against?

It's the people who walk about freely that need to "broaden their horizons" since more incarcerated felons volunteer for medical experimentation every day than do the so-called "law-abiding citizens".

And since involuntary medical experimentation is in itself a criminal offense, it should be the advocates of such trials upon whom the experiments should be performed.

I just feel it would simplify the volunteering process.  "Do unto others..." and all that.  :P

I'd say if you did something bad enough to get executed, you probably don't deserve empathy.

One would keep sanity and why should death row criminals receive empathy.

Because what if they're innocent? Would you rather turn an innocent person into a test dummy on the off chance they were not? And what if they didn't even understand what they'd done wrong? Do you do the same to those with mental illness?

Stick them in a prison and leave it at that.

Every system screws up a few times. As for the mental illness, that's another debate entirely.

Well sure. But there is a massive difference to being thrown in prison for half your life even though you're innocent, and being used in Human experiments for half your life even though you're innocent.

What's that quote? I'd rather ten go free than imprison one innocent.

Nothing is perfect, there are innocents on death row already, might as well make use of them

Because why not, right? They probably deserve it! How about we create a system where one can not get murdered with a needle innocently. I.E, abolish the death penalty and shoot this silly idea out the window.

Abolish the death penalty? Nonsense, keeping individuals in prison is simply a drain on resources.

That's a shame. I'd rather pay more taxes than murder someone though. I'd wager if money is a problem, cutting down that billions and billions that you waste on the military would be enough, at least for a time.

Perhaps cutting down on prosecuting those who do drugs, willingly, would free up a lot of space too.

It's not murder, it's execution.

State sponsored murder, or execution. Either one you prefer.

Your main issue is that you would feel responsible and guilty because it violates your sense of morality is it not?

Why would I feel guilty? I have no reason too, unless I was involved in it. It does certainly violate my sense of morality, and would violate international law.

Well, the debate isn't the current legality of it, it's whether it should be legal.

Which is why I said would.

No, as in: international law wouldn't apply.

The death penalty would be effective it was carried out immediately, which it isn't. I don't see the use of keeping someone locked up for fifteen years before finally offing them, if they're going to do it they should do it as soon as the person has been sentenced.

Oh no, I'm advocating a reform to the appeals system. If the death penalty is on the table, you get one appeal and that's to the supreme court, no more stalling.

Well shit, now I'm curious haha.

I'm not sure why he deleted, since it wasn't that argumentative.

It was more of a general statement that people on death row tend to be the kind that you can't reform at all and are just all around no good. Wasn't really in favor of using them like lab rats though.

Fine:

I don't believe that the people who are on death row are the ones who are willing to change. They did something socially unacceptable, they knew it was socially unacceptable, they knew what could/would happen to them, there was something in their mind that allowed them to justify, to rationalize, what they did, and, chances are, it won't just go away.

Your post is shrinking again.

I see where this thread will probably end up going, and my last paragraph would've been a straight path there. My second paragraph implied that I was taking one side or the other, and I couldn't find a way to avoid that.

Those people who were sentenced to death wrongly would disagree. 4.1% of people that is. They didn't even need to change, or justify anything. They were, are going to be, wrongly killed. As would those that are literally crazy, like Andre Thomas. They don't have the ability to know what they're doing is wrong, or socially unacceptable. And you want to kill 'em, without them understanding why, for it instead of giving them the medical help they need.

If it doesn't happen, if they don't change or if they aren't shown to be innocent, so be it. Stick them in a prison and be done with it. Giving them the chance, or medical help, is important. It's what makes us different to them.

The thing is, psychology is a helluva lot more of a shitshoot then the movies make it out to be. Mental illness is never as simple as "getting help", which is why there should probably be experiments, if they're needed.

I know. My sister is a cunt for a reason. Regardless of how likely it is, I don't see how one could justify experiments, especially ones where the individual is being harmed, because they aren't gonna change.

If they aren't going to change, then we should definitely experiment on them, if we can't save them, then maybe we can save the people that come after.

I'd rather the days where we experiment on people without their consent stay in the past. 

Why not just hold these experiments in a way anyone could enter, voluntarily. It's not even morally questionable then.

Yes, I like that idea.

Because if you're kookoo for cocopuffs, and too far gone to consider killing people a bad idea, then getting professional help is probably the least of your worries. You have to realize 70% of people who are insane are blissfully (Or perhaps not so blissfully) unaware of it, and the prisoners who were either going to get killed or spend the rest of their lives weaving baskets drugged out of their minds like broken machines are probably better off sacrificed for the greater good rather than devouring taxpayer dollars. Once someone has a logical idea for an experiment, they should be submitted, if not for their sake, then for others..

If they're to insane to consent, they shouldn't be bloody forced. It's immoral.

Ah yes, morality, what of it? Order is more important.

That depends on which moral engine you're using. Utilitarianism says it's hunky dory as long as the looney in question is happy throughout.

One could have the test subject drugged once it has been determined said drug of choice has no effect on the item being tested.

Govt run or a private sector unassociated with politics?

Hadn't thought of that. I had automatically assumed that it would be done by the government, though I guess making it non-political would be a good thing. What would be the difference between the two?

Well if we're going to start experimenting on death row inmates, we might as well bring back the prisoner gladiator matches you guys were arguing about in another thread.

Tempting but gladitorial combat only provides entertainment and not medical advancement, perhaps they could be distributed among the two?

Well everyone seems to hate the pedo/rapey criminals, so I figure they can be the lab rats.

The "normal" murderers can be the gladiators. 

I was thinking distribution based on who would put up the best fight.

Actually, I wouldn't mind poetic Dante's Inferno punishments...

If you're a rapist, you get castrated and experimented on. If you're a thief/con man/scheming broker who did something big enough to get the life penalty, everything you own (Unless it's stolen property that needs to be returned) is distributed freely throughout the community. If you're a drug lord, you get killed by a crack overdose instead of lethal injection, if you're a murderer, you have to kill in the arena to survive.

What's the point in that? What are you going to gain exactly?

Drug lord? What kinda drug lord? One who engages in other crimes (murder, theft etc), or one who just sells and grows shit?

The punishment would fit the crime.

The kind that engages in other crimes and/or pulls strings to get those crimes to happen. You shouldn't get killed for just growing shit, even if that shit is opium. I wouldn't gain anything, it'd just be entertaining. Remember, this is the hypothetical world where we can have gladiatorial combat for prisoners.

It depends on morality. We don't do it, because it wouldn't be 'right' according to this strange and complex thing called morality.

An example would be what is presented in a Homo Perfectus game; It would greatly benefit society to have a Baryon for every city, to be able to protect everyone at night. That would be right in several views. But the way to get a Baryon, to carve up a pregnant woman - killing her in the process -  that is morally against what is 'right'; it would be one of the farthest things from 'right' in terms of morality.

There are these things called human rights for a reason. It prevents people from doing things that aren't morally right. Of course, I don't see how sticking people in a cell until they die is morally right either.

I'm something of a Utilitarian*, so I wouldn't mind having a Baryon... But then again, I would, because no one person should have that much power, shit would get dangerous as soon as the romantic ideals of superheroism wore off and they realized they were protecting a crapsack world that was tying to break them all along and would probably get dangerous. Though the life penalty is morally right, considering the alternative, and also considering the fact that they did something horribly wrong in order to get there and deserve it, unless they were wrongly accused, in which case they have the rest of their lives to build a case and appeal the court's wrongdoing.

*Utilitarianism: Whatever lets the most people live the happiest lives the longest is the best.

I don't know much about "Baryons" but I agree the superhero mentality would wear off eventually.

It wasn't superheroism that kept baryon going; it was his sense of justice, and he tried desperately not to be a tyrant. But, that's beside the point.

The least they could do for those with the life penalty is give them a choice; being stuck in a cell for the rest of your life, lethal injection (or some other means of quick death. Lethal injection isn't exactly quick or painless), or to volunteer for experiments.

I do agree that the experiments should be a thing, but it should be voluntarily, not just taking people with life sentences in prison. I do know that at least some of the public would volunteer for it.

How about both convicted, death row/life in prison criminals and volunteers were experimented on? Only difference is, there would be benefits for volunteers.

People could volunteer from that position with knowledge of the lack of benifits, yes, but they couldn't be experimented on without their consent.

You misunderstand, I meant a similar system to how the Romans collected their gladiators. The criminals do it because they have to and the volunteers do it for money.

No, I understood perfectly. I was changing the idea a bit. Anyone can volunteer, weather or not you previously had the life sentence effects some of the benefits you get, no one is forced into doing it.

Perhaps, but we must agree to disagree if neither of us has any further arguments.

Or how about everyone can volunteer, with a possible incentive for all.

I still prefer the idea of "don't murder someone or we'll experiment on you whether you like it or not."

Which would likely fail as a deterrent and on top of that, you'd be doing it to people who might not understand what's going on, and those that are innocent.

Who is "Dr. Mengele"?

Unfortunate but there would have to be a screening process for anyone wanting to experiment on humans.

Not if they're unconscious.

Because of studying behaviour?

Studying the awake actions of a human being to see if new medicines have any effect on behaviour.

Crazy German guy who was involved with Auschwitz.

This falls into the argument of the ends justifying the means. I wouldn't hesitate to get a Baryon for every city because it is the best plan for the long term.

How about a system where...

If you are on death row, you can accept your death, or agree to serve 15 years as a lab rat before being let go.

This is certainly the better way to go. I'd rather neither options were available though.

Yeah, death row is a flawed system, but if they agree to it, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to win their freedom by serving as lab rats.

Ninja edit: they could go insane and go on a mass murder spree as soon as they're let out.

And that's the problem.

I don't even think they have a right to that choice. If the state has already decided that their live will be taken away from them, then they can just as easily subject them to medical experimentation.

Have you seen the movie Death Race? I feel as if that would be the best way to do this.

Nope, what's it about?

I can't be bothered so just the read the plot off of Wikipedia.

Nice, but the risk in that is criminals surviving and being freed.

Yeah, but it would be rare and make great entertainment. That prisoner would find fame and possibly fortune when released and could turn his life around.

If not, he'd be closely monitored with cops ready to throw him back in for round two.

No, that's not how you treat a national hero. Besides, the whole event would make a shit ton of money for the government, for all I care he could kill and rape as many babies as he wanted as long as my college tuition is subsidized by that money.

Hero?

The Running Man works too.

I think a race would be more entertaining.

Or a Battle Royale.

Back to traditional gladitorial combat?

You save that scenario for juvenile offenders.

You mean the Hunger Games :)

Or a giant human centipede.

Besides using some arguments about experimenting on prisoners, which would invoke Godwin's Law, I'd still say that this is wrong on so many levels. Basically, the involuntary experimentation on people goes against basic human rights, like the right to one's own body. Furthermore, there is a very real chance that the person in death row is actually innocent. Also, the experimentation on people with drugs which could severely harm or kill them (which is, I think, what you are implying) goes against almost all of the medical profession's ethical codes. 

I know, and neither are the other codes of ethics, but that doesn't mean that they don't matter. Nor that the associations of medical professionals, etc. don't hold them in high regards.  

Experimenting on people would be fucked up but I've always been confused as to why we keep people who've been sentenced to death around for years and years using up hundreds of thousands of dollars. The drugs used in lethal injections are super expensive too and not always available...so why not just give them a year so they get a chance to get their shit sorted out and then take them out back and Old Yeller 'em. These are often people who rape and murder children and torture and kill women in really fucked up horrible ways so still the easy way out considering what they did to their victims.  

Given how plentiful guns and bullets are in this country, it really does seem more logical to just shoot a lot of these death row folks in the back of the head.

They could line them up and then shoot from one side to another in order to conserve ammo. The executioner who manages to kill the most prisoners with one bullet could get a bonus for added incentive.

In WWII the Nazis developed death camps because their executioners invading other countries killing Jews came back desensitized to the worth of human life and murdered anyone who pissed them off, including their wives and children. That's why there are hangings, electric chairs, and gas chambers.

We had hangings, gas chambers and the electric chair long before the Nazis showed up.

...

There were human skin book covers dating back to at least the 17th century.

Don't know about belts and such, but I have to believe there probably were some creatively demented minds doing shit like that somewhere long before the Nazis did too.

EDIT: Bah, you edited! Now I look like a psycho talking about human skin book covers for no apparent reason. Lol.

Sorry about that.  I was Googling it and found out about the bibles, anatomy books, etc., because I didn't want to look like a complete imbecile.

Quote:  "What about human skin lampshades, belts, etc... ?"

Nah, it's fine. I'm sure I looked like a psycho long before this conversation. Lol.

A very tame one.

Everyone's favorite psycho.

No you're not, that was a good movie but a ridiculous plot

I hated Escape from New York.

Hurray

Didn't even know Human Centipede 3 was out yet.

I clicked that link on a library computer.