Yeah. We have the same problem over here.

Seems to me that if a criminal wants to earn time off his/her sentence by volunteering to test drugs or vaccines (or to help shorten the time for testing) it would be ethical on the part of the criminal, the government, and the medical community.

The question raised by Banno is a valid one...and troublesome. The only thing I can think of in mitigation, is that blacks and women appear to be shortchanged in medical research. If most of the experimenting is being done on blacks (I think that is overstating the case)...but if it is, they will gain the most benefit from the research.

I do not think it would be ethical to take advantage of someone's desire to be free.

Daniel
119
↪Frank Apisa I do not think it would be ethical to take advantage of someone's desire to be free. — Daniel

You are free to think or not think whatever you want, Daniel.

A prisoner might think it to be an ethical bargain.

They should be free to think that.

Why not give them that opportunity? Both the prisoner and society would benefit.

Your idea makes the justice system "less perfect" by suggesting that rather than move toward eliminating the prison industrial complex, we utilize it to perform clinical trials on individuals against their will. It doesn't matter if they committed a number of egregious crimes, it is immoral to have slaves for any purpose. End of story. (Yes even if it saves lives). Experiments on the jews of the holocaust and the black slaves of the transatlantic trade led to great medical discoveries, but it should have never been done.

I would loathe to meet a creature capable of employing these ideas. Is this what we want to become?

You think passivity is more moral? You're willing to let more people die just because you're not the one who pulls the trigger? How is more people dying a better solution? The funny thing is if such experiments were done we'd be closer to living in a utopia where no one would have to suffer or die from disease and we'd still be closer to ending the prison complex as an indirect result.

Ie less criminals due to family members dying of disease.

You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs and you can't make progress without sacrifices.

I'd loath to meet a creature that let's others die due to disease

they're criminals. Also, I don't think it's ethical to let innocent people die of diseases when more could be done to save them.

Oh hush. If you had one that didn't render you completely unable to function and needed something another had that would die as a result of not your taking of it but presence, long story short the thing you needed would be taken and death would occur.

what are you doing to save them? what in the world gives you the moral right to put forward and defend such an evil proposition?

I'm not a hard utilitarian like you are. I think it's wrong to quantify the values of human life. Where there is death, I'd like there to be none, rather than less or some sick exchange of life. Another example of this situation could go like this: I can't just propose we use those in the 1% that are concentrating my nation's wealth as test subjects because I feel they must pay for their negative impact. I personally think the 1% are worse criminals than most murderers, but I can't honestly say one is truly better than the other, or that we should use low-lifes for experimentation. A life is a life. Just because you put a lower value on the life of and inmate doesn't make it right. An inmate is already serving their time or will be put to death. Prison and lethal injection are torture enough I think.

I think it's wrong to quantify the values of human life. — Mac

Because you're (presumably) a decent person. Know nothing of you personally but you more than likely had a tolerable upbringing and currently have a tolerable existence. Who knows what you'd be like if neither were true.

Where there is death, I'd like there to be none, rather than less or some sick exchange of life. — Mac

Embracing perfectionism and idealism is a sure way to end up with neither.

I can't just propose we use those in the 1% that are concentrating my nation's wealth as test subjects because I feel they must pay for their negative impact. I personally think the 1% are worse criminals than most murderers, but I can't honestly say one is truly better than the other, or that we should use low-lifes for experimentation. — Mac

Bruh we all use their systems. You're using one if not many more simultaneously now. You don't know for sure (though I will admit it's probably not unlikely) that all or even any of them aren't decent people who perhaps know more than you or I. So the guy who revolutionized the world (arguably for the better or worse) by inventing the computer or the iPhone shouldn't be rewarded for their works proportionally yet you or I should simply because we're not of the highest class? Which is virtual life imprisonment btw and total removal from society. You can't really go anywhere or do anything. You'd get kidnapped, killed, tortured, or just constantly challenged by those with inferiority complexes.

Even if you're just a minor celebrity or local politician. You'll never know the true nature of people and experience the life that comes with it. Everyone will always either put on their best face because of what you have and can do or their worst because of what they don't and cannot. And no one will truly sympathize with someone who can afford mansions and decide laws that govern others because why should they? Shoot even I'm getting a little pissed thinking about someone doing either lol. Which is my point. You never know the thorns in someone's foot until you've walked in their shoes. Just some random food for thought on the interwebs I guess.

An inmate is already serving their time or will be put to death. Prison and lethal injection are torture enough I think. — Mac

There we go. Real talk.

I never said to embrace idealism. My point is that the goal and alternatives I explained are reasonably attainable. People act like they are idealistic dreams of perfection, but it isn't ridiculous to imagine that the prison system could change majorly for the better in the next 100 years. What is unrealistic is accepting that stagnation is all that will happen, and that the best we can do is is put a band-aid on a lethal wound. And come on,

but you more than likely had a tolerable upbringing

How is this even relevant? My point of view could be a beneficial and useful one regardless of my background. And how could one possibly come to the conclusion that I had a "tolerable upbringing" based on anything I've said? You insult me by acting like you aren't trying to insult me, when your objective is clear. The reason I'm even spending my breath on this topic in this forum is because it's close to home for me. Back to the point: Doing experiments on a criminal against their will is just as immoral as putting them in a cell. I don't think this is that whacky of a stance and I have yet to see the burden of proof fulfilled by the person making the original claim.

You insult me by acting like you aren't trying to insult me, when your objective is clear. — Mac

I do apologize for that and would like if you believed that was far from my intent other than to say yeah, as far as quantifying life and other decent ideals I was merely asserting a kind of nurture over nature defines our sense of morals, ideals, etc. I even said you were presumably a decent person.

We're on the same page as far as objection to OP's premise. Mine is simply solely based on the fact no one is perfect as shown by DNA evidence exonerating people often some who spent decades incarcerated and so you could be performing inhumane acts on a perfectly innocent man when you think you're not. That could have unexpected ramifications.

I go through great pains to seperate the art from the artist. I don't "know" anyone here personally so like most people hopefully they respond to ideas, concepts, and assertions versus persons, personas, or anything personal like that.

Paging Dr. Mengele! Dr. Mengele, PF calling!

I appreciate the good faith. I don't think the the OP's author is acting in good faith though. To me this is really a comical assertion and the only reason I entertained it was because of my involvement in the topic already as well as the hilarity of the logistics of building the system proposed given how much worse things would probably end up. There's too much hypocrisy to address that I don't even dare continue.

...we could sell their kidneys...

There is this huge failure of societal progress when people think the only way to deal with crime properly is to punish criminals.

There is this huge failure of societal progress when people think the only way to deal with crime properly is to punish criminals. — Mac

It's less about dealing with crime, more about saving lives

how is death more logical? That's worse than medical trials. Also if a life is a life then shouldn't one life be sacrificed to save the many?

No. like I already was clear about: I don't put a quantifier on the value of human life. One or 1000 lives. I think that in itself is immoral, but that's another topic. And I don't understand how this is not about dealing with crime. You are the one claiming you have a sure way to kill two birds with one stone. The minute you mention how to handle criminals, you are making the conversation about dealing with crime. It's immoral and just poorly thought through IMO (as far as what you've suggested so far). Looking at other responses it looks like I am not alone in thinking this as well. Maybe reconsider your proposal with the suggestions from this forum. I saw a lot of useful critiques of your idea here.

I hesitate to second the motion despite knowing that, sometimes but not always, participating as a subject in an experiment would be way better than incarceration/execution because to learn anything useful the unfortunate criminals should be representative of the general population but that may not be case and criminals could be a special subcategory of the population. Of course, if you make the assumption that we're all potential criminals it would be a different story. Perhaps you mean to gain insight on how to treat mistreat poor criminals for an overall benefit to the community.

Eg for every 5 trials they reduce your sentence by one year or something like that — Gitonga

For example they might let a hardened young killer out of prison if he offers to undergo experimental treatments to cure him of his violent tendencies.

I can just imagine these serial mass murderers getting shot up with some chemical that fucks with their already imbalanced brain chemistry. Next thing you know, we have Stan Lee predicting supervillains.