Murderers should be used for medical experiments

Political Philosophy
1

Since murderers forfeit their right to life would it be considered immoral to use them for medical experiments?

I believe it wouldn’t - although I really don’t like the sound of it, I feel it is wrong -

just as an animal has no right to life, and can be used for medical experiments so can a murderer who has forfeited his right to life. The only question that comes up here links into capital punishment, which is.. does the evidence certainly prove that he is in fact the murderer.

Have I gone wrong in my thinking somewhere or is this possible, ethically and politically, in an Objectivist society?

2

Surely a murderer forfeits his right to his own life for as long as his sentence lasts. By giving them medical experiments whilst they are in prison, you are giving them a punishment that could last long after they are out of prison. By that grounds, I would say it is immoral.

3

Surely a murderer forfeits his right to his own life for as long as his sentence lasts. By giving them medical experiments whilst they are in prison, you are giving them a punishment that could last long after they are out of prison. By that grounds, I would say it is immoral.

What if they were serving life sentences with no possibility of parole?

4

Since murderers forfeit their right to life would it be considered immoral to use them for medical experiments?

This is false as a general statement (that people convicted of murder forfeit their right to life). In some instances, they may be subject to the death penalty. The current standards regarding conviction and the death penalty are unacceptably low, but there are certainly cases when guilt cannot be doubted (e.g. there are millions of witnesses to the fact that Jack Ruby committed murder).

The proper moral stance is that a crime has a specific punishment which is known in advance, and is morally justified by reference to the virtue of justice. Such a punishment could be contemplated only in the case of a man whose guilt was certain and who was condemned to die for his acts. An execution could then be justice – a balancing of cause and effect, getting what you deserve, no more and no less. I don’t see how using a person as a forced subject in medical experiments is of any value, so I don’t see how it would better serve justice to allow this rather than just directly executing the person. The argument would be, at best, that forcing participation in such tests would be for the greater good of society, a clearly collectivist / altruist motivation. Maybe you have thought of some actual reason why actual murderers should be punished that way, so if you give the reasons that support doing so, we migth evaluate the reasoning. As it stands, your question is seems to presuppose “we should do it unless there’s a reason not to”, and I argue that we shouldn’t do it unless there is a reason to do so.

5

What if they were serving life sentences with no possibility of parole?

It’s really a similar question as to whether it’s a good idea to have a death penalty. Some of these experiments could very well have lasting effects, and if the person is later found to be innocent, you’d have committed a much graver injustice than mere imprisonment.

As an alternative, I don’t really see the problem with forcing them to actually do something constructive, like work. I mean, given how much it costs to support them, I think it would be much better to let them support at least some part of their own living expenses (i.e. the money that’s earned this way can be used by the prison to pay for food and supervision and all that).

6

I think we should give death row prisoners the choice of participating in dangerous medical experiments in exchange for life without parole. That way, it puts it back in the hands of the prisoners. They may end up dying anyway, but if some good can come of them before they do, it would be more worthwhile than simply executing them.

7

To expand upon my earlier post; obviously the government shouldn’t be competing with most jobs, because the labor would be virtually free and that would be unfair competition, but there are certainly some activities that you can make them engage in, and I do not think that’s a violation of the criminal’s rights if you take their basic needs into account. The fact that some prisoners have higher standards of living than non-criminals is somewhat ridiculous, because if prison ever becomes a desirable alternative, something is wrong.

8

To expand upon my earlier post; obviously the government shouldn’t be competing with most jobs [with prison labor],

Prison labor is probably one of those particulars that will only be a consideration if there is trouble in financing the prison system. Even in this special case, I am not sure how much prison labor would compete with other labor markets, as they would surely be an unpleasant and largely unmotivated workforce. Nevertheless, I still think you have identified a valid concern, I am just not sure how much of a concern it will actually be in practice.

9

Prison labor is probably one of those particulars that will only be a consideration if there is trouble in financing the prison system. Even in this special case, I am not sure how much prison labor would compete with other labor markets, as they would surely be an unpleasant and largely unmotivated workforce. Nevertheless, I still think you have identified a valid concern, I am just not sure how much of a concern it will actually be in practice.

Well, I don’t think it’s so much about needing to have trouble paying for it; if we do not have taxation in a free society, it would be a lot better if you can find a way for prisoners to pay for their own necessities. That way it poses no drain whatsoever on the rest of society, and it makes the rest of government that much easier to sustain in a moral and practical way.

10

The argument would be, at best, that forcing participation in such tests would be for the greater good of society, a clearly collectivist / altruist motivation. Maybe you have thought of some actual reason why actual murderers should be punished that way, so if you give the reasons that support doing so, we migth evaluate the reasoning

I was thinking in this direction. Prisoner is convicted of murder. Proof is certain. Prison can offer up convicted prisoner to medical companies needing human subjects for experiments, in turn receiving funding from the medical company.

The intention of this is not punishment, but medical use of someone with no right to life - if it is needed.

11

The fact that some prisoners have higher standards of living than non-criminals is somewhat ridiculous, because if prison ever becomes a desirable alternative, something is wrong.

Wait, are you suggesting that the ideal prison should put prisoners in worse conditions than those suffered by anyone else anywhere?

12

Wait, are you suggesting that the ideal prison should put prisoners in worse conditions than those suffered by anyone else anywhere?

I think what he means is that criminals shouldn’t be given better conditions than the average person, not anyone anywhere.

13

I think what he means is that criminals shouldn’t be given better conditions than the average person, not anyone anywhere.

Well, then there’s nothing to worry about, since prison is not, and is not likely to become, a desirable alternative to the quality of life of the average American. :smiley:

David answered the original question well, but I thought I’d take a stab at it too. The confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the phrase “a murderer forfeits his own right to life.” This phrase means that you may morally use lethal force if necessary to protect yourself or others from a murderer. It does not mean that you may shoot the criminal in the back as he is fleeing, nor that you may later hunt him down and cut his throat in his sleep (to protect the innocent, guilt and punishment must be determined objectively so the courts will, rightly, try you for murder if you do this). It certainly does not mean that the criminal becomes your property, a rightless serf that you may use for whatever purpose you wish.

In the case of capital punishment or life imprisonment there is no rehabilitation, so the purpose of the punishment is to deter others from comitting the same crime, and to prevent anyone else from becoming a victim of the criminal. A just deterrent must fit the crime, and torture (which using someone for medical experimentation certainly is) does not fit any crime. Although there is nothing morally wrong with permitting someone sentenced to death to volunteer for experimentation, offering to commute his sentence to life imprisonment if he accepts can in no way be considered a free choice. Consent under threat of death is not valid, and just because a criminal might agree to be a medical experiment, be a bulletproof vest test dummy, play a round of Russian roulette on national TV, or any other macabre deal in exchange for life imprisonment should he survive, that does not mean that those programs are right. The death penalty or imprisonment are objective punishments that are defined and knowable. They are objective. Sentencing someone to “whatever effects this experimental drug may have on you” is not, and is not at all just.

Finally this idea of extracting benefits from the criminal and conferring them unearned upon the general populace so “some good can come of them” is pure collectivism; it implies that men are interchangeable cogs with no individual moral import. The criminal did not harm “society”; he committed an injustice upon a unique, irreplaceable individual, and using him to test a cure for AIDS, or baldness, or heck just carving him up for transplant material (which would be a much more efficient way of using him to directly save lives) does not make up for it. Conferring these benefits on uninvolved third parties, as if one man’s gain can balance another’s loss, does not restore some great cosmic order. It merely piles one crime atop another.

Not to mention the political danger of making voters or government officials expect benefits from each conviction…

14

it would be a lot better if you can find a way for prisoners to pay for their own necessities.

Right, I am just not sure how this can be implementable in a free society. I am assuming that in a near-ideal Capitalist society prisons would be publicly financed and possibly run by private contractors. So what would these prisoners do to “pay” for their own cost of incarceration? Obviously, they would have to produce something. What if they refuse to work? Do we literally put a gun to their head?

What employers would also conceivably wish to contract prison labor? I suppose a few prisoners might be interested in being productive to earn their own spending money, but I suspect that they would be the exception, whereas the typical inmate would be uncooperative.

15

Right, I am just not sure how this can be implementable in a free society. I am assuming that in a near-ideal Capitalist society prisons would be publicly financed and possibly run by private contractors. So what would these prisoners do to “pay” for their own cost of incarceration? Obviously, they would have to produce something. What if they refuse to work? Do we literally put a gun to their head?

What employers would also conceivably wish to contract prison labor? I suppose a few prisoners might be interested in being productive to earn their own spending money, but I suspect that they would be the exception, whereas the typical inmate would be uncooperative.

You don’t need to put a gun to a prisoner’s head to force him to work. You can just take his meals away based on the amount he refuses to work. Prisoners used to work, even in the US, all day until a few decades ago. They would be involved in farming, road building, laundry, yard clean up, clearing land for prison construction, and other things. Prisons were almost self-sufficient.

At least where I live, prisoners are given free education and counseling, can spend most of their day in woodworking shops, working out, watching cable tv, reading and then are given their meals. All prisoners have access to universal health care where I live, and some may have access to programs that help them off drugs. There isn’t much emphasis put on “work hard and receive benefits.” Where I live, it’s more like: “Don’t commit further crimes and abusive animal behavior, then you will receive benefits.” I think that should be expected though. Prison nowadays just enforces the entitlement mentality, especially with the new emphasis on educating the prisoner for free.

Prisoners often have more material benefits than people living and working on minimum wage. Compare them especially to an immigrant Mexican family with a father that has to work 15 hour days in the sun for his food, who possesses no health care coverage and neither has the time nor the money for the education offered to prisoners.

16

Without having read the entire thread, I’ve this to say:

A murderer forfeits his right to life. No question about that. But that doesn’t mean he becomes property, either of the state or anyone else. Only that the state has the right to execute him as retribution for his crimes.

That said, I wouldn’t mind if convicted murderers sentenced to death had such sentences commuted to life as a medical test subject without the possibility of parole. But only if that were a choice offered the murderer. There are things worse than death, and being made property is one.

Finally, medical testing often requires a multitude of subjects. Say you have a drug that kills cancer cells in the lab and it doesn’t kill the mice you try it on. You can try it on people next. Suppose you pick ten volunteers. They don’t die from the drug, but they don’t get better either. That indicates the drug isn’t good enough. Suppose 7 get better and the other three have little improvement. That indicates it is useful and you need to test it on a larger sample.

Testing it on one murderer won’t prove anything at all, even if he does ahve cancer and he does get better.

17

A murderer forfeits his right to life. No question about that.

One question: what does that mean?

18

One question: what does that mean?

It means the proper and just punishment for murder is death. Regardless of the function of capital punishment as a deterrent, the moral retribution owed any first-degree murderer is to take his own life.

19

Since murderers forfeit their right to life would it be considered immoral to use them for medical experiments?

This is a very disturbing topic. Even though technically they do forfeit their right to life, the one thing that would make this system fail is the possibility of wrongly accused people. What if somebody is actually innocent and is forced to become a mutant all because of a government punishment. The fact that there is no objective way a government can Guarantee that they will only catch criminals renders such deterrents to wind up doing more harm than good. So long as governments mistakenly arrest innocent people, such deterrents must be dismissed as a huge infringement of our natural rights.

20

It means the proper and just punishment for murder is death. Regardless of the function of capital punishment as a deterrent, the moral retribution owed any first-degree murderer is to take his own life.

With the standard caveats about erroneous executions (that only definitely guilty people like Jack Ruby or Sirhan Sirhan are eligible for execution), I could agree as long as the statement is in terms of calculated, premeditated murder. However, a number of other things have gotten assimilated into so-called first degree murder.