Murderers should be used for medical experiments

Political Philosophy
21

As long as someone is willing and capable (psychologically) of murdering he has forfeited his right to life.

The thing is, people have will, they can learn and change their mind and psychological state. And because of that, one act of murder is not enough to conclude that the person’s psychology will remain fixed, and that therefor he has permanently forfeited his right to life.

However, since changing someone’s psychology takes time, murdering once is enough justification to arrest someone for a long period of time, until he is able to prove that he has indeed changed.

22

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.

So if a prisoner is willing to agree to something if the alternative is death, then it becomes acceptable to do it to him? What if I offered a death row inmate a life sentence if he agreed to play a round of Russian Roulette on national television? This furthers a public good (entertainment), and it’s only at the expense of one dirty murderer after all, and he’ll certainly agree since a 5 in 6 chance of life is better than certain death. Maybe we could use him to test Kevlar vests, or the long-term effects of asbestos in a controlled setting. Or is there perhaps a principle of objective law that would forbid sentencing someone to “the outcome of a death game” or “the unknown results of a medical experiment”?

23

So if a prisoner is willing to agree to something if the alternative is death, then it becomes acceptable to do it to him?

No. I said a convicted murderer forefits his life, but he doesn’t become property that can be used at the will of some owner. Meaning a death sentence is ok, but a sentence of medical experimentation is not. However, I woulnd’t object to having the option of life as an experimental subject offered in lieu of a death dentence. I also pointed out how little useful data one would expect to get.

24

There are a lot of things a death row inmate might agree to to avoid execution, but that doesn’t make such agreement free from coercion. Forcing a criminal to endure a sentence is one thing, but using that as a bargaining chip for organs, test subjects, entertainment, or whatever would be immoral. Not to mention the danger of a government that has something to gain from imposing the death penalty…

25

There are a lot of things a death row inmate might agree to to avoid execution, but that doesn’t make such agreement free from coercion. Forcing a criminal to endure a sentence is one thing, but using that as a bargaining chip for organs, test subjects, entertainment, or whatever would be immoral. Not to mention the danger of a government that has something to gain from imposing the death penalty…

Could you be more explicit as to why? The point of a debate like this, one would hope, is as much to educate the other person as it is to correct them, and if you just say, “You’re using him as a bargaining chip” and don’t explain why that’s wrong, it’s not helping anyone. As for an agreement free from coercion - the agreement to go to be arrested rather than be tazered for resisting arrest isn’t exactly an agreement free from coercion - nothing involving the use of the justice system implies any freedom from coercion. In fact, it’s the exact opposite: it’s the one legal place where we may use coercion.

26

nothing involving the use of the justice system implies any freedom from coercion. In fact, it’s the exact opposite: it’s the one legal place where we may use coercion.

That is so, but the pertinent question is what may coercion in the justice system be used for? The answer is protection of rights, retribution and restitution. And it is the latter where Vital Signs makes a point.

He said “Not to mention the danger of a government that has something to gain from imposing the death penalty…” I’d add, or a society who can gain rfom it. This is an idea I first encountered in an SF story by Larry Niven called “Jigzaw Man.” The notion is as follows: if people in general can benefit from sentencing people to death, beyond protection and retribution, won’t more people get sentenced to die? Perhaps for crimes that do not rationally deserve execution as punishment?

Let’s stick to the medical experiment thread. I pointed out there are too few death row inmates to really matter, but they might suffice fro preliminary studies, particularly as ocncerns a drug’s safety. You’d have a clear benefit, albeit a small one. What might happen next is the government, particularly an altruistic minded one 8which is to say all governments currently in existence), may apply the death penalty to less serious crimes. To second-degree murder, to manslaughter, to felony murder, perhaps even to assault, kidnapping and rape, not to mention child molestation. With the intent not to put more criminals to death, but to ahve them choose a life of being subjected to medical experiments.

Niven imagined capital punishment for very minor crimes, really for misdemeanors. I can see such things applied to non-crimes such as drug dealing, drug possesion, prostitution, etc.

27

Could you be more explicit as to why?..nothing involving the use of the justice system implies any freedom from coercion. In fact, it’s the exact opposite: it’s the one legal place where we may use coercion.

As I explained in a previous post, the purpose of punishment for crimes is to protect the innocent, both by keeping the criminal away from society for a period of time, and by deterring would-be criminals from committing crimes. In each case, everyone in the rest of society gets what he is morally entitled to get: freedom from coercion (well, to the extent that the justice system actually works of course). No one is entitled to an unearned benefit because of a crime, so there is no justification for using criminals to ‘benefit society’ apart from whatever compensation to individual victims the court may decide to impose in a civil suit. The moral use of coercion in the justice system is of a specific, limited nature: retaliatory force, the coercion necessary to impose the sentence (or arrest the person with probable cause). Make no mistake though, he is still under coercion and an agreement he makes, post-sentencing, to commute his death sentence to play a game of Russian Roulette in a game show, be a crash test dummy, take drugs with unknown effects, etc are not valid. Note that plea bargains are done in advance of a trial, where the outcome is not certain and it is there that any sort of ‘medical experiment’ or ‘community service’ deal could properly be made. Waiting until after the trial, sentencing him to death, and then offering him some (possibly grisly in the case of experimentation) alternative is not a valid agreement. It is treating him like property.

I don’t want to de-rail the thread but one could make the argument that community service is the same thing. I would say that it is not, and is a proper use of sentencing for three reasons: (1) community service is the sentence, decided by the judge or pre-trial by a plea bargain so it is objective and knowable beforehand, (2) community service is a defined punishment, whereas “the outcome of an experiment” is not, and (3) the primary purpose of community service is punishment, not road beautification (or whatever); that is just an incidental benefit, and the same purpose could be served by having the prisoners stack and unstack blocks. There is no incentive to imprison more people in order to clean more highways (not least because hiring someone is cheaper and easier). In this thread’s proposal, medical experimentation is the main purpose and prisoners are convenient subjects. If you want to say punishment is the purpose and medical knowledge is secondary, then that is both unpredictable and possibly cruel and unusual depending on the effects.

Incidentally, the taser/arrest analogy is not really a valid comparison for a couple of reasons. The most obvious being, the suspect cannot choose the taser over arrest (if he resists, he is tasered and arrested, so there are not really two alternatives to choose from, barring escape). The arrest itself is not really a punishment; someone is only detained on probable cause and has a chance to prove his innocence and avoid punishment. Finally, by resisting arrest the suspect is defying the justice system and the taser is not meant as a punishment per se, but is merely a means to force compliance and is therefore retaliatory force (since the resistor is suspected of initiating force).

Yeah D’Kian, I specifically had Known Space in mind when writing these replies: one of my favourite organ-bank stories involves a man about to be sentenced to death who escapes and destroys an organ bank before being caught. He is not charged, because the prosecutor knows the jury will find him guilty of minor traffic violations and sentence him to death, but at least when he hears his sentence, he can feel like he really did something deserving of death instead of just being a sacrificial goat.

Edit: Yep it was long: you asked for it!

28

Yeah D’Kian, I specifically had Known Space in mind when writing these replies: one of my favourite organ-bank stories involves a man about to be sentenced to death

I won’t repeat the spoilers, but that’s “Jigzaw Man.” It is a very powerful story. I first read it over 20 years ago and the theme stayed with me for a long time. I find it even more horrifying than Pohl’s idea of a Body Bank in his Starchild Trilogy (same as Niven’s, but the prisoners are taken apart bit by bit), because Niven’s was a free society while Pohl’s was a dictatorship. Actually all his “organ bank problem” stories are kind of horrific. Have you read “Patchwork Girl”?

29

Oh yes, I read as many Niven short stories as I could find in high school, even if I’ve since forgotten the names. ‘Patchwork Girl’ was about the irreversibility of some punishments after convictions are overturned, and it was also insightful social commentary and a rather disturbing commentary on what it means to attermpt to benefit from death.

30

Oh yes, I read as many Niven short stories as I could find in high school, even if I’ve since forgotten the names. ‘Patchwork Girl’ was about the irreversibility of some punishments after convictions are overturned, and it was also insightful social commentary and a rather disturbing commentary on what it means to attermpt to benefit from death.

And on rushing to judgment. I liked Gil’s insistence on finding out what really went on. Gil’s probably Niven’s best character, in spite of the imaginary arm.