Using death row inmates as test subjects instead of animals is an idea that I would like to hear about. Should death row inmates be given the choice: "You can choose to stay on death row or become a test subject for potentially harmful chemicals and diseases?" I can think of pros and cons to this decision but I don't have a decision; I just want to hear about it.

I'd have no problem with it at all. Might as well get something out of their worthless hides before we zap 'em.

Kanyeshnah seems to be suggesting a situation in which a death sentence would be reduced to a life sentence if the prisoner agrees to undergo the test. At first glance, this seemed like a reasonable idea to me, but then I thought about it a little more. Can we really think of this as a "voluntary" choice? Take the test or die? I'm also concerned that such a policy would tend to encourage greater use of the death sentence.

Cephus seems to be suggesting a situation in which inmates on death row are subjected to such tests and then executed anyway. I cannot condone this. Whether the death penalty is appropriate is a matter for another debate; however, even if it is just in some cases, this does not excuse the state adding torture to the sentence. If the death penalty must be used, it must be used with regret, not with joy.

I suppose I would support a program in which criminals who are not on death row would be granted some reduction in sentence for fully voluntary participation in studies which are not extremely dangerous. This would be a form of "good behavior" on their records.

I believe that would potentially set a very dangerous precedent. I don't agree with experimenting on humans, even those scheduled to die. Would we keep them in cages and observe their responses, like laboratory rats?
What next? 'Decrease your life sentence by submitting to medical experimentation'? I doubt there are enough people on death row to qualify as a legitimate statistical data sample anyway.

Death row or even life sentence prisoners would make awful test subjects from a strictly scientific viewpoint. They are almost always NOT a cross reference to society, and almost always have some kind of drug damage to thier organs. Remember, 99.99999999% of hardened prisoners are chronic alcohol and drug abusers! Even in countries where they had executions on a regular basis, like Russia, they didn't do experiments on the prisoners, even though they were basically declared non-human. They are horrible test subjects.

Away from the clinical viewpoint, are system is not accurate enough to actually determine guilt in a fair and equitable manner, so we would be forcing or coercing a large number of innocent men to go through with experiments.

It didn't sound like a terrible idea to me at first. Before giving it some real consideration I thought maybe some death row inmates might like the option to become guinea pigs rather than flash lights. But it's really not fair to give a person that kind of ultimatum. Granted, their presence there is essentially their own fault, but it wouldn't be a fair process giving a person those options.

In addition, I also thought about the news coming out about certain disorders and surgery in the medical field. Often times there is unnecessary diagnosis or surgery in order to increase the profit of the medical doctor. In a similar fashion, and as Victoria touched on, I think such methods with death row inmates might encourage some attorneys to unnecessarily pursue the death penalty in court. We have enough problems with special interests that we don't need to gamble the lives of our citizens on more.

Already there are accusations across the country of prisoners being improperly used for the manufacture of some goods. Prisons sometimes steal contracts from private businesses because the work can be done cheaply by prisoners. And while this might present an opportunity for release on good behavior, it also allows similar abuses. Who is to say how many people have been mistreated or denied priveliges in order for prisoner cooperation? There's already too much room for officials to abuse the penal system.

And while we're discussing death row inmates, rather than merely those incarcerated for alchohol or drug charges, I think Cruising brings up a good point as well. Any incarcerated person is not going to be fully representative of society at large. It hasn't been but a month or two since I read a report acknowledging that experiments on many animals are not half as accurate as once believed. Animals kept outside their natural environment often times develop a myriad of disorders, making their response to experiments significantly different from what might be considered the typical one.

The benefits don't appear to outweigh the risks. This includes not only the risks to prisoners but also to society at large, who would presumably be given access to products developed based on faulty research.

A criminal needs to be punished for their crimes. If the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for a crime, that doesn't change because the criminal does something altruistic toward the end.

Besides, we're talking about people VOLUNTEERING to be used for tests. It is unethical to simply force the tests upon them and no one has suggested that. In some small way, some criminals might see this as making up for their crimes, or at least clearing their conscience. Because we're talking about some pretty nasty tests, commuting death to live in prison would probably not be an option as the tests might likely kill them or the after-effects of the tests might make continued life more cruel than death.

We got a little problem here, it is called the Eighth Amendment which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Them darn founding fathers sure screwed up a lot of great ideas. Of course both the left and right have gotten around the Constitution in the past.

Looking at this even without the benefit of the eighth amendment for a moment (thanks, Hugo)...


They would be volunteering under duress. It wouldn't really be in the interest of justice to give prisoners that kind of ultimatum. And actually it hasn't been brought up the kind of tests which might be performed. Some animals are used for such simple things as the testing of cosmetics for Max Factor and such. Certainly we wouldn't trade the death penalty in lieu of making them Elizabeth Taylor.

The subjects for the tests will probably more accurately represent people than other animals do.



I think human volunteers make better subjects than animals that have no choice.



If it is voluntary, then should it still be considered punishment?

I'm still on the fence over this issue BTW...

Death row inmates are not in a position to consider the ramifications of experimentation on them vs. certain death. Many on death row develop mental illness if they didn't have it already. Constantly thinking about impending execution is part of the punishment, I am sure.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian advocated the use of death row volunteers for the donation of their organs, putting them to sleep after the organs were harvested. He's in prison.

While I am against injecting the eyes of rabbits with chemicals to determine the safety of a cosmetic, I cannot support the idea of subjecting criminals to tests, either. We need to find a better way.

First off- there are very few if any mentally ill poeple on death row- unless you count criminal thinking as a form of mental illness. And you have to also say if you think it is legal mental illness or a clinical mental illness and then describe the setting neccesary for diminished capacity etc- this is what I did for a living for about 8 years LOL-

So, as I have said before, in philosophy, I am pro-death penalty. In reality, we don't have a good track record nation wide with making sure we are not killing the innocent. Also, no rich poeple are ever executed only the poor, which automatically assumes an unequal application of justice. Unless it is something to applies to all citizens equally, it should not be something codified into law.

So for both scientific and application it would be the wrong thing to do without some kind of major legal reform!

How is it cruel or unusual if they *VOLUNTEER* for it? Sorry, just don't see it. It's not punishment by any sense of the word.

Abs like Jesus writes:


How would it be under duress? It isn't like they should get anything for it, no reduction in sentence, no putting off their date with the chair, no nothing. If they wish to clear their conscience, great. If not, no harm, no foul.

I may be the only one on the forum with experience in a laboratory that used animals for test purposes.

I can assure you, there aren't enough people on death row. That's why we switched to using animals.

It was suggested that this might be an alternative to the death penalty. The animals that are in such a study, both test and control animals, are killed at the end of the study and then autopsied. All their tissue types are examined for irregularities. It wold be useless to run a three month preliminary study, then wait twenty years for results.

Before they start a study, they know how much the animal will weigh at 714, 715, 716 days of age, wtc. Humans aren't that reliable.

The tests are run under controlled temperature, humidity, hours of light and darkness. They are fed a consistent diet day in and day out. Would you accept a steady diet of Purina Human Chow? Even as an alternative to the death penalty?

We have long since gone past a point where accepted laboratory practices would allow humans to be used as a screening technique. We still need human volunteers to test vaccines, cosmetics, and the like before they are released to market.

I lived and worked in a county that held two murder trials in the 20th century; but our daily need for test animals was in the hundreds.

I thought this was a good idea when I was sixteen, but have since then grown up. Its disgusting and inhumane to test and torture living beings, criminal or not. Why is it OK for criminals to be forced into this (because seriously what kind of choice is "die or have tests raping your body"? I know which I'd choose), and not regular citizens?

Jews had medical tests performed on them while in concentration camps, and they only had the crime of being Jewish. Is it really that hard to see something like that happening the moment we allow testing on humans (in captivity)?

Yes, it is wrong on many levels, but let's go clinical for another bite, adding to what Curmudgeon said, let's take one of the most prolific death penalty countries, China, and they give the prisonor no rights there. They execute thousands or more every year, and if they have not found a way to make this palatable, then I don't think it is palatable. If something to thier advantage would come from experimenting, they would find a way to make it an "honorable way out" I am sure- but I just don't think there is good scientific basis for the testing.

As much as i would probably agree with it, this is not Nazi Germany. WE don't use people as test subjects for diseases and chemicals, regardless if they choose to be.

We may violate Human Rights on occasion but we would never go THIS far

The way i see it, we have no right to do such a thing. The inmates were sentenced to however long their sentence is on deathrow, and then execution. They were NOT sentenced to being the test subject for the latest shampoo. It's really as simple as that. Whereas it may be a smart idea scientifically, it's morally cruel and wrong.

They really are still people. They already make license plates, isn't that enough. Death row is a waste of the taxpayers money anyway, just as is the life sentence. They sit on death row for 10 years, then die, what a prolonged inevitability. I think this is immoral, but with this government, it could very well happen and I won't be able to do anything about it...

China has actually found a way to benefit medically and financially from death row inmates. They are essentially used as spare parts for organ transplants, and this practice has moved underground into a very profitable organ black market to people all over the country.
Actually, I don't see anything wrong in letting a death row inmate be an organ donor if they are a match for someone in need. But, currently live or executed prisoners are forbidden in the U.S. to donate an organ, even for free, except to family members under special circumstances.
I know that donating an organ and volunteering to be medically tested on, are not the same. But it does seem like a shame that death row inmates can't be used to give someone else a second lease on life.

-Kisov

There was an attempt once to use death row cases as organ donors as well. In the US, all the death row inmates once again have organ damage from thier various lifestyles, and are unsuitable for organ donation. There was an attempt by some actual death row inmates to donate thier bodies for a particular project, which was to make a 3-D computer model of the human body using an undamaged cadaver (as opposed to someone that died of a terminal disease or car accident)- there was not one suitable candidate on death row that volunteered!

How is it that executed people in China are viable organ donators and American death row inmates are all unsuitable?

-Kisov

Death row inmates and organ donation might better be suited as a separate topic of debate. This particular one appears meant to deal only with inmates sentenced to die and experimental testing on them.

Nature of the inmate- we don't execute many poeple, and those we do are always poor and drug addicted to some degree. At least alcoholics.

Chinese death row poeple may actually be succesful businessmen caught in a coruption scandal as opposed to the crack addict that killed to poeple in a hiest on a seven eleven.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PREVALENCE OF SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS ON DEATH ROW


This link I found primarily for you, CruisingRam, since you told me in an earlier post that people on Death Row aren't mentally ill. Then you posted this:



There is a lot of mental illness in the prison population, let alone Death Row. It could be successfully argued that Death Row inmates are not capable of making that kind of decision. Giving that kind of choice (experimentation vs. execution) could be construed as coercion as abs has stated.

The prison atmosphere certainly isn't conducive to mental health for its inhabitants.