Animal testing or Criminal testing?

Question

Do you believe in animal testing?...


Personally, i think its cruel to test on animals, for any purpose.
To time how long it takes an innocent and frightened animal to die, and recording how much pain they are in, is inhumane in my opinion. Researchers would get much more accurate results if they tested on humans. And what better humans to use than the ones that have committed horrific crimes?! It's the perfect punishment. Murderers and rapists should be top of the list for testing drugs, they should have the most potentially harmful or lethal drugs tested on them. Of course im not suggesting that petty crimes should be punished in such a way but the criminals that have damaged our society and taken or ruined peoples lives beyond repair, should be made to give something back to society and help save lives.


...Or do you believe in criminal testing?

Answer 1

criminal testing definitely i agree with every thing you have said you raised very valid points

its not exactly a punishment going to jail, 3 meals a day, TV kettle in your cell, pool table

(depending on the crime though some poor soul who doesn't pay their TV license comes out with an extra ear growing on their back)

It makes sense to test on humans as we are the ones that will use what has been tested.
If i ever needed some drug for something serious i dont want to here it worked on 20 rabbits so we know it will work for you (im not a rabbit) I want to know that its been tested on humans and who better than testing it on criminals

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

How about NONE OF THE ABOVE.
Vivisection and drugs testing are painful and often needless. There is no excuse or justification for decent human beings to inflict this torture on any living creature - no matter what they may have done or how low we consider them to be in the scheme of things. NOTHING wth a central nervous system should be subjected to the horrors that go on in the research lab.
There are many ways to test medicines without causing death or pain. Computer modelling, tissue culture and present knowledge all combine to form a viable alternative to the present system.
Animal testing is misleading. Animals are not human and react differently to both disease and medication. Thalydamide was tested on animals and appeared safe.
Monkeys do not develop HIV AIDS when injected with the virus
Penicillin was not tested on animals- if it had been, we would not have the benefit of it today as it is pousonous to dogs and would therefore been deemed unfit for human consumption.
The list goes on....
Testing on criminals is just vindictive and hateful. What kind of society would we live in if we condoned such cruelty? where would it end?

Answer 4

There always will be testing in animals before they test on humans, though it does not have to be cruel, and should never be cruel.

Tests are also done on our troops, hopefully with their consent.

The Constitution of the United States prohibits testing on criminals against their wishes. In the USA, the human body is inviolate.

Consider this, should a serial killer get a reduced sentence or early parole because she tested a drug that saved millions of lives? Scary thought.

What about a person who goes insane and kills several innocent people, then tests an anti-insanity drug that cures the insane person, should that person be released as rehabilitated and cured?

Answer 5

If you commit a crime, your punishment is a period of time away from society. You can't just lump extra punishments on because you feel that rabbits are marginally cuter than burglars.

The whole point of having a civilised society is that the ultimate goal of the punishment is to educate, reform and re-integrate criminals with civilisation. It is not - or rather, it is but it should not be - a place where you put people and do unspeakable things to them.

---
To the answerer directly above me - no, you are not a rabbit, but you are a mammal. First-line medical testing is performed on lab animals such as mice and rats, and if these tests show promise (and a board of ethics gives the thumbs-up) human testing is started. Your answer belies a complete lack of understanding about how medicines are tested, and yet you're quite happy to approve the most unethical medical proposition on the planet in an almost breezily off-hand manner.

Answer 6

Good idea! We test many drugs now on volunteers, because testing on animals is NOT the same as testing on humans. Our bodies are completely different, (dogs can die from consumption of vitamin C, for example) and even testing drugs on men only (as they usually do) does not mean the drug is safe for women (Thilidomide, for example!).
The problem is, how far do we trust the justice system. Looking at Gitmo, the answer is 'not at all'. So maybe the guy who suggested computer models is right.

Answer 7

I am completely for criminal testing. After you have assulted another human being or killed them, you loose your rights to humanity and considerate treatment.

Animals do not harm people out of malice, and therefore they do not deserve to be tortured. But a serial killer or serial rapist is more than deserving, and they need to pay back society.

However Liberals will have you believe that their payback for taking another human's life or violating their bodies or freedoms is allowing them to marry or have children while on death row (IE Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez). They will try to convince you, and have thus done well in said convincing that doing testing on a killer would be "cruel", but have no apparent qualms about harming a chimp or a dog who harmed no one.

To quote Roland Orzabal "God save those born to die."

Answer 8

To be honest I would rather a human die than a innocent animal who's life was cut short for a stupid, idiotic product! But I believe it depends on what kind of person the criminal is..like if he/she is a nice person who was stupid when they were young and begs for forgiveness from God and the family member of the deceased then they shouldn't be tested.

Answer 9

i have a hard time with the criminal testing. It seems so often you hear stories of criminals who may even be on death row who are found to be innocent when new evidence arises. i do not think that they should be tested without their consent. If they are in the slammer for life, they should be given the option to be experimented upon. i don't know...it would really be an ethical dilemma. Thanks for making me think. Best wishes.

Answer 10

wow that makes a lot of sense. the criminals could suffer for what they did and for the benefit of animals, and the test results would be more accurate if you were using a human.

wow that's really thoughtful