The latest murderer is out there somewhere on a killing spree - they probably aren't too bothered about being caught as they are expecting quality treatment in prison.
I say inject any convicted murder with a deadly disease and if a cure occurs then at least we will know that the cure has worked on humans.
2006-12-13 08:06:40 · 11 answers · asked by CatsEyes16 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
If they've been convicted, beyond a shadow of a doubt they are guilty (let's say they said it outright, and bragged on it) then, I agree. Why not?
.
2006-12-13 08:14:16 · answer #1 · answered by twowords 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'd in problem-free words evaluate it justifiable if the convicted assassin signed consent to be examined or experimented on. Afterall, they're human (perhaps no longer morally maximum impressive yet nevertheless people). I do comprehend what you're putting ahead and in a way evaluate it a good idea on a thanks to end animal testing. My first idea after studying your submit replaced into this: Has the authorities created those ailments, diseases, or ailments for some unknown and mysterious revenge or cruelty? Is the authorities now hunting for treatments and coverings to what they're responsible for? -- That replaced right into some concepts that ran by my concepts for some reason. And contained eventually, I somewhat ought to ask myself a question: Is there a rationalization for each little thing?
2016-11-26 01:23:00 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because a human being should not be used merely as a tool to find a cure for a disease.
Why not use them to research a way to rehabilitate criminals, that way they themselves may gain some sort of benefit.
i dont condone murder, nor would i have any sympathy for a murderer who was used as a medical guinea pig. It is simply highly immoral behavior to use a human being as a means to some end.
I know it happens quite often, but that does not make it ethically sound.
2006-12-13 08:16:28 · answer #3 · answered by marc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a fine line between the principles of true justice and the barbarity done by despotic regimes.
We must stick to true justice by giving stiff prison sentences for serious crimes and even the death penalty if that is applicable, but if we start inflicting positive cruelty on them because our emotions get the upper hand, we and our whole society start to descend to the level of criminal thinking.
There is a type of anger that we could express towards injustice that itself descends into injustice.
---
2006-12-13 08:15:15 · answer #4 · answered by Catholic Philosopher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But that's what separates the good from the bad. If we were to perform such acts on them, then wouldn't that make us the same? We have morals and ethics and they don't, so lets not stoop to their level of actions and mentality.
2006-12-13 08:13:22 · answer #5 · answered by Yahoo Anwers 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why do tests on convicted murderers when you can do tests on the unemployed
2006-12-13 08:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Nazis had the same idea.
It's called being inhuman.
2006-12-13 08:15:24 · answer #7 · answered by chieromancer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea I'm for it if we are gonna kill people why not use the to figure something out
why cant we take stem cell from aborted babies
2006-12-13 13:47:38 · answer #8 · answered by keokeid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree but why waste the potential cure? let them suffer!
2006-12-14 08:02:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
we can, however to do so....wait a minute, are you sure you dont know the answer?
2006-12-13 10:01:56 · answer #10 · answered by metroactus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋