using animals in testing products could murderers and Paedophiles be tested instead?

Question

for obvious reasons they can speak if they feel discomfort an animal cant also the prisoner can get some sort of reward for the research experiment
just my opinion
what do you think

Answer 1

Nice one Mark. There's only one thing stopping that happening and it's called human rights. There are many here that will argue that a person who commits a serious crime renounces their human rights. But human rights campaigners say no.

Answer 2

USA have tested on mental patients without their knowledge. Human rights extends to all. No testing without informed consent. Certainly anyone could volunteer. However, life should mean life .Prisons too full- should be for violent offenders & sexual predators. Likes of Jeremy Archer should be given jobs like Boy George- street & public toilet cleaning. As for paedophiles-some countries use "medical castration" to extinguish lust, but as rape & paedophilia is about power over another person that's probably not the answer anyway. One thing is the real probability of re-offending. We have a right to know if there is a paedophile living in our area. Bring in Megans Law

Answer 3

finding out animals is inaccurate. yet finding out people doesn't make it appropriate. we are animals too you recognize. those that earned a existence in penitentiary maximum in all probability had drunken father and mom that continually abused them. no human being merits to die, no count number what they did. And cavylover isn't incorrect. she is nice. no longer in each way, even though it a lot of thoughts. You requested this question to get distinct reviews, yet your putting down all of us who doesn't allow you to recognize what you want to take heed to. hmmmm enable's see. imagine your self sitting in penitentiary and then being thrown right into a lab to be examined and torchered with flesh burning chemical compounds! how would you experience? advantageous you're saying that that is a good idea now, yet when that were you, then you will be apologetic about retaining this stuff. definite those human beings in detention midsection are thoroughly tousled, yet purely because they did something incorrect, doesn't propose they don't look to be people. they have thoughts. i hate animal finding out, and that i wish it did not exist, yet there is no longer something we may be able to do about it. it is purely something we can't administration. i appreciate animals more suitable than something, yet we can't win this conflict.

Answer 4

I thought of this one a long time ago, so it's great to see that others out there think it's feasible.

I have one major problem with your statement though, I don't think that they should be rewarded!!!

I say, if the death penalty doesn't scare 'em enough, then it's time to try something new!!!

Answer 5

Sounds plausible, morally acceptable, will provide better scientific results and if things go wrong we've done the world a favour.

But alas, not everyone thinks like you and I so it'll never happen.

Answer 6

You know,ive always thought that myself.Why hurt innocent animals who have done no harm when there are scumbags out there who we could use instead.I agree....

Answer 7

there should be other forms of testing, it's not always nessecery on humans or animals

Answer 8

yes

Answer 9

THEY should be.
but their 'human' rights well you know what some are like.