Human Testing On Criminals?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I was wondering how everybody on the site feels about Human Testing? But, not testing on everyday Joe's like you and I...but testing new vaccines, experimental drugs, and possible cures on convicted criminals? I know that alot of testing is done on poor defenseless animals, but what have they done to deserve the poor circumstance of being tested on? Especially when we have Murderers, Rapists, and lifetime criminals that we should have every right to test on..I feel that they lose ALL rights when they murder somebody, or rape a poor defenseless woman and or/man.

I feel that we should spend more time on testing people that have decided to end their life with life...in jail. And stop testing on animals...after all, who's to say that something that works on a rat..will work on a human being.

Mods--I am sorry if this has been posted before, I used the search, and could not find anything on these specifics.

So to the ATS family...please state your opinion wether it be negative or positive.

Thank You




posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


I think this is a sick idea to be honest, especially considering that there have and there are ppl that have been wrongly convicted. I wouldn't support this at all. I don't support testing on animals either. I wish things could just be accepted in their natural state.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Too many implications that make this a bad idea.

So many people are WRONGLY convicted, and that's just the way it is. They need not suffer more for this.

I was reading years ago that they were trying to come up with alternative methods for testing... Not sure, I think it was on IDA's website.
I'm guessing they failed to come up with methods that worked, or people like Proctor and Gamble simply find it too profitable to keep using real animals.



EDIT: Typo.. And to add, I'm disappointed that they never did find alternative methods that were acceptable.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by LostNemesis]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
...You aren't serious right? You want to test on convicts just because they are in jail? I know our judicial system is far from perfect but the reason they are in jail is because that is their punishment. It doesn't make sense that you want to punish them further by shooting them up with drugs. Those people in jail are still humans and should be treated like it. Now I have no quarrel with medication testing on convicts that have volunteered and fully understand the contents of the medication they are being tested with.

-IgN0raNt



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I agree with both of you on the fact that there are people that are wrongly convicted, but what about the people that commit murder and further offenses while they are in jail? Then you are 100% sure that they did the wrong thing.? Agree???



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ign0rant
...You aren't serious right? You want to test on convicts just because they are in jail? I know our judicial system is far from perfect but the reason they are in jail is because that is their punishment. It doesn't make sense that you want to punish them further by shooting them up with drugs. Those people in jail are still humans and should be treated like it. Now I have no quarrel with medication testing on convicts that have volunteered and fully understand the contents of the medication they are being tested with.

-IgN0raNt


Absolutely...murders' have NO rights...honestly...if a man murdered YOUR significant other...then raped YOUR daughter...you would not have a problem with the government testing an experimental drug on the Murderer and Rapist..? And even further..what if that experimental drug cured the cancer that your father has???

All a what if scenario...but honestly possible..No intention to hurt or piss you off...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


I am all for letting the punishment fit the crime, but to subject someone to what could be extremely harmful feels wrong. It is going beyond revenge. I feel that those who want to test something that could potentially be harmful to another living creature (humans included) should have to test it on themselves.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


I am all for letting the punishment fit the crime, but to subject someone to what could be extremely harmful feels wrong. It is going beyond revenge. I feel that those who want to test something that could potentially be harmful to another living creature (humans included) should have to test it on themselves.




I agree...but if all scientists tested their stuff on themselves...then who knows what type of world we would be living in today...I feel that some minds that create these drugs...are too important to be lost...especially when we have bad bad bad people that the world could do without. Honestly...I feel we could make the world a MUCH better place if we tested on the scum of the Earth.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


Um..no...it is just as simple to frame someone already wrongly accused in jail as well. It's all in appearances and evidence. No? All that needs to be done is have a body, some dna, placement at the time, and a false witness.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by StretchUSAF

Originally posted by Ign0rant
...You aren't serious right? You want to test on convicts just because they are in jail? I know our judicial system is far from perfect but the reason they are in jail is because that is their punishment. It doesn't make sense that you want to punish them further by shooting them up with drugs. Those people in jail are still humans and should be treated like it. Now I have no quarrel with medication testing on convicts that have volunteered and fully understand the contents of the medication they are being tested with.

-IgN0raNt


Absolutely...murders' have NO rights...honestly...if a man murdered YOUR significant other...then raped YOUR daughter...you would not have a problem with the government testing an experimental drug on the Murderer and Rapist..? And even further..what if that experimental drug cured the cancer that your father has???

All a what if scenario...but honestly possible..No intention to hurt or piss you off...


If you want to play scenario's.... How about if your father get's convicted of a crime he didn't commit. He gets a life sentence and is tested on ? That's all just hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen. Back on topic, yes murderers are people that have taken the rights off others. Yet if we force them to get tested on aren't we continuing the cycle of hatred?Many of them decide to repent their actions and try to live life for the better while many of them don't. On top of that many convicts are innocent and have been wrongly accused. We cannot forcefully begin testing on convicts because of this.

-Ign0ranT



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HugmyRek
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


Um..no...it is just as simple to frame someone already wrongly accused in jail as well. It's all in appearances and evidence. No? All that needs to be done is have a body, some dna, placement at the time, and a false witness.





I am not sure if you are familiar with the American jail system...but they are equipped with video surveillance...and with all the officers inside..alot is seen..
quickly off topic....how did you manage to get negative points???



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ign0rant

Originally posted by StretchUSAF

Originally posted by Ign0rant
...You aren't serious right? You want to test on convicts just because they are in jail? I know our judicial system is far from perfect but the reason they are in jail is because that is their punishment. It doesn't make sense that you want to punish them further by shooting them up with drugs. Those people in jail are still humans and should be treated like it. Now I have no quarrel with medication testing on convicts that have volunteered and fully understand the contents of the medication they are being tested with.

-IgN0raNt


Absolutely...murders' have NO rights...honestly...if a man murdered YOUR significant other...then raped YOUR daughter...you would not have a problem with the government testing an experimental drug on the Murderer and Rapist..? And even further..what if that experimental drug cured the cancer that your father has???

All a what if scenario...but honestly possible..No intention to hurt or piss you off...


If you want to play scenario's.... How about if your father get's convicted of a crime he didn't commit. He gets a life sentence and is tested on ? That's all just hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen. Back on topic, yes murderers are people that have taken the rights off others. Yet if we force them to get tested on aren't we continuing the cycle of hatred?Many of them decide to repent their actions and try to live life for the better while many of them don't. On top of that many convicts are innocent and have been wrongly accused. We cannot forcefully begin testing on convicts because of this.

-Ign0ranT


Please read my reply to another member...if they are convicted once again of wrong doing while in jail..
And if my father was convicted of a second crime...and they tested on him..I would be all for it...he is my father..YES...but he did wrong...and I can and will let God judge him when he passes on.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Also..please take a look at the link..and see the staggering statistics..all these guinea pigs to use for the betterment of the world...not to mention how much $$$ is thrown into the jail system each day for people that make this world worse..

Jail Statistics



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
As a felon, I am absolutely against this unless it is voluntary. And if it was voluntary then they should be able to open testing up to the public on the same basis. No human should be ever tested on against there will and without their knowledge. Prison is a completely different world than most can imagine. An innocent person, who is bitter at the system, may say screw it and handle situations differently, especially those wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to life. I would be taking my anger out on any and everybody if I was told I was to spend the rest of my life in prison for something I didn't do.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I get what your saying, committing another act while in jail. Why this must be the scum of the earth huh? But I strongly believe that without due process we humans aren't in a position to judge each other. We cannot take the power into our own hands to decide who lives and who dies. These tests may cause lifelong suffering and brain damage. Who are we to inflict that pain on someone else? Don't get me wrong it's a double sided argument. If we can't test on convicts then animals are the next in line which is also wrong. So how do we advance in our knowledge of medicine? It's a tough choice but I still believe it's morally wrong to take anothers life into our own hands.

-Ign0RanT



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by StretchUSAF
 


I just view things differently I suppose. I think that people are so concerned with pro longing our lives and making them convenient that we are ruining the quality of life. Because of these "brilliant" minds, we have lost touch with reality and with nature and have in essence become the disease on earth. Murder and revenge are part of the natural process of life. Testing is not.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
As a felon, I am absolutely against this unless it is voluntary. And if it was voluntary then they should be able to open testing up to the public on the same basis. No human should be ever tested on against there will and without their knowledge. Prison is a completely different world than most can imagine. An innocent person, who is bitter at the system, may say screw it and handle situations differently, especially those wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to life. I would be taking my anger out on any and everybody if I was told I was to spend the rest of my life in prison for something I didn't do.


I appreciate you're sharing with us..but obviously you were not in for murder...I can see why everybody is against it, but I still hold my opinion. Is there nobody out there that agrees with me?

Also..I thank everybody for being civil about this.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ign0rant
I get what your saying, committing another act while in jail. Why this must be the scum of the earth huh? But I strongly believe that without due process we humans aren't in a position to judge each other. We cannot take the power into our own hands to decide who lives and who dies. These tests may cause lifelong suffering and brain damage. Who are we to inflict that pain on someone else? Don't get me wrong it's a double sided argument. If we can't test on convicts then animals are the next in line which is also wrong. So how do we advance in our knowledge of medicine? It's a tough choice but I still believe it's morally wrong to take anothers life into our own hands.

-Ign0RanT


Taken from above quote...

We cannot take the power into our own hands to decide who lives and who dies

End quote

So...the murderer' can decide??

It seems we are going in a circle here...but I am just trying to get somebody to see my point..and my side of the story.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
No the murderer can't decide hence the reason he is in jail...
According to you we on the other hand would pump them with drugs, for the benefit of society. What's our punishment?

-Ign0RanT

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Ign0rant]

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Ign0rant]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ign0rant
 


What I was trying to get at was the fact that you said The Murderer Can't Decide..correct?

Well..his/her victim didn't wake up and was like...well...I think I will be murdered today.

What I am trying to say...is that the victim had no choice. The murderer did...now the murderer has a chance to not have the choice...Fair is fair..am I wrong again?



[edit on 10/19/2008 by StretchUSAF]





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join