DavidOdden Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 After thinking about it, I don't think that there is any reason to say that a government must do anything with the organs of an executed criminal.There is a simple reason why the government must do something, which is that the government would be the agent that ends the life of the criminal and would be in physical possesion of the body. At that point it becomes an issue, one that must be answered -- what do they do with the body? Prima facie, the body is part of the estate of the deceased, either an asset or a liability depending on whether it is toxic waste or can be sold for parts. The profits and losses are part of the overall liability or asset of the estate, and is the responsibility of the executor to deal with (perhaps with some state compulsion, if the executor is resistant to paying the debts of the estate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 Indeed, I don't see that the government dispenses with the material posessions of someone convicted of murder. They can FINE you for some offenses, (and send you to jail if you can't/won't pay the fine), but the government is not the owner of the posessions of criminals any more than it owns the criminals themselves. The VICTIM of a crime such as rape, assault, etc. doesn't own the criminal either, nor should they. Retribution is not justice. It would be a grave injustice to people of a great many religions to forbid them from collecting the remains of their deceased relatives for whatever they consider "proper" burial, and some of those burial methods preclude donating organs and tissues. In my understanding, orthodox Jews believe that if you don't have all your body parts when you're buried, they're still missing when you get to heaven. And I know Jehovah's Witnesses don't do donation, either. They're irrational beliefs, but so what? It's permissable to allow for other people's beliefs as long as it's not violating anyone's rights. The cadaver shouldn't belong to the government because the family of the deceased can be very interested in its disposition and there's NO reason to punish the family for the crimes of one of its members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted April 5, 2006 Report Share Posted April 5, 2006 The cadaver shouldn't belong to the government because the family of the deceased can be very interested in its disposition and there's NO reason to punish the family for the crimes of one of its members.There may be such an interest, but it should not override the obligation incurred by the criminal to compensate the victim's family. For which reason if Jones incurrs a dept of a million dollars to the victim's family, and that debt cannot be paid except by parting out Jones' corpse, then the victim's family has a legitimate claim on corpse. The religious or emotional interests of Jones' family do not negate that obligation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.