Would it be okay if the government conduct human experiments

>>1797002
no, there is something called human rights

It seems to me like that would be a slippery slope type thing.

>>1797002
I do not mind.They already in the death row.

>>1797651
If you're already going to kill him might as well salvage some good out of it
>>1797656
In what way?

>>1797668
not him but im assuming that if experimentation on death row inmates was given the green light then over time arguments would be made to justify experimentation on prisoners

"Well, we're already testing on killers, why not on rapists too?"

>>1797668
an eye for an eye op, but a death sentence is most definately not the same as torturing someone

>>1797679
"Well, we're already testing on killers, why not on rapists too?"

Yes.Why not?!

Why not create clones and experiment on them?

Why not give them superpowers. Nothing could go wrong.

Why not let government shoot people who visit sites like 4chan? They must be potential serial killers/rapists.

>>1797668
Human is human when they're alive. Unless they consent to helping others.

I'm fine with that, the only problem is death row waiting times

>>1797002
I think the 4th Amendment would prevent such a thing

pudding should be fed to them

Human experimentation should be an option for death row prisoners then.

Either be executed, or have a certain amount of years taken off your sentence/be given certain privileges for choosing to be experimented on

At least, if you are to be executed, then allow your execution to be done as a scientific experiment

File: ethnic brit.jpg (37KB, 229x377px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 229x377px

>>1797002
No, because that's what hobos are for.

>>1797651
>human rights
That's a meme.

In some ways being strapped to a bed and injected with sleepy juice is more fucked up and dehumanizing than firing squad or the rope.

Why not use death row inmates as soldiers? Some kind of suicide squad.

>>1797002
What good what it do to test drugs on people not suffering from the maladies the drugs were intended to treat?

What is a real waste are all the terminal patients who do not enroll in clinical trials that - even if unsuccessful - could increase our understanding of certain diseases and in the future yield a cure.

> Stage IV cancer here and altruism is all I have left

No.

However, if you fully informed them of the experiments and got their informed consent to conduct the experiments in exchange for leniency on their sentence that'd be... a little less shitty. Still pretty damn shitty, though, since the decision would still be made under duress (IE "agree or you're going to die").

>>1803997
>Give a bunch of convicted murderers firearms!
>What could possibly go wrong!?

>>1804311
>>1803997
Nazis did this during WW2, the Dirlewanger brigade. They freed a bunch of rapists, pedophiles, murderers and mental patients, gave them guns and sent them to conduct anti-partisan operations, you can have a wild guess how that went.

>>1804230
Maybe if you paid their families... "You're going to die either way, but participate in deadly experiment X and group Y will get cash after your death."

>>1797002
In the end, however, you're basically encouraging the state to execute people for the benefits of research. Could become a real problem if your medical establishment gets a significant foothold in your body politic.

Really, unless you live in some sort of utopia (at which point you shouldn't *need* a death penalty), you want there to be as little profit motive as possible for putting citizens to death - if you want the state to have that power at all.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73495,_Oskar_Dirlewanger[1].jpg (50KB, 472x785px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 472x785px

>>1803997

>Why not use death row inmates as soldiers? Some kind of suicide squad.

The Nazis tried that.

The results were so horrifying that even the SS couldn't stomach it. Their behavior was savage beyond anything else the Nazis ever did, and that's really something.

>>1804323
>Dirlewanger brigade
Well, I suppose if you're in an existential war, and drop them all in the middle of the enemy with a crate of arms, it doesn't work all that badly, for you...

...Granted, you're pretty fucked if they are too successful, and take over the enemy government. (Which isn't too far removed from where some of these crazed third world dictators come from...)

>>1804349
The Dirlewangers were actually pretty shit fighters when they faced something more intimidating than a bunch of civilians.

>>1804323
reading that made me think of phil ochs "when in rome". Thats some fucked up shit.

>>1804337

Sounds like the perfect shock-and-awe team. All you need is a commander who's a law-abiding sociopath, so he can handle the heat.

Or, hell, use psych testing in the military to identify the most perfect sociopaths, and use them for strategy think tanks, psyops, and shock squads.

>>1804434
>What could possibly go wrong!?

>>1804440

You really just need to find one perfect law-abiding psychopath to head up the operation.

Putting normal folks in charge of people with brains optimized for manipulation, mayhem, and murder is just bound to go wrong. The ringleader needs to be the least human of the bunch, but with desires that are easy to legally satisfy.

>>1797002

It would be a legitimate cruel and unusual punishment

File: again-what_could_possibly_go_wrong.jpg (117KB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 940x529px

>>1804461
Putting someone who is pure evil, utterly ruthless, and in all likelihood, smarter than you, in charge of training a bunch of people, who are varying degrees of competent evil incarnate.

It's like you are TRYING to write up the backstory for a comic book supervillain.

>>1797002

Depends on the person. I would not do it just to anyone on death row but some particular people sure.

I believe some people lose the right to be treated as human beings and for all the bad they have done be forced to give something back to humanity from which they have taken.

However something like this would be set aside for the worst people on death row.

>>1804475
>unusual
I always wondered about this term. Like, if everytime someone were sentenced to Death, they were to be experimented on, would it still be unusual?

Also, rights are a spook.

>>1804487

Again, it's only viable if the monster has simple motivations and desires. Then again, if they're the cream of the crop of psychopaths, those simple motivations are probably lies created to lull their supervisors into a false sense of security.

I'm not really saying that it's a good idea, just that it's how you create a military force that nobody ever wants to fight.

>>1804512
>Also, rights are a spook.
Yes, but they are a Constitutional spook, so if we're talking about the US policy and law, it is an argument you must take into account.

...On the other hand, I am with Heinlein in that a punishment that isn't unusual, to some degree, is basically pointless. (Although the Death Penalty is fairly unusual, outside of Texas.)

>>1804521
So long as we're in agreement that it's a fun, but incredibly bad idea, best left to a dystopian sci-fi novel, rather than actually tried.

>>1797002
It would create perverse incentives to condemn people.

>>1804535
Like, more than the current US system?

>>1797691
Because the legal system is neither just nor absolute, it is only an attempt at being so. There's (likely) hundreds of U.S. inmates right now who don't rightfully deserve to be incarcerated, either because they were wronfully placed there, or because they simply don't deserve to be there from a moral perspective. You have to take into consideration that prison isn't for the unethical, it's for the illicit; if a government declares x illegal solely because it goes againt said government, then what's preventing from governments testing on prisoners who have done x? They're guilty right?

Testing on prisoners is morally ambigious, because you have to take into consideration WHY they're prisoners in the first place.

imo experimentation should be up to the prisoner being tested on, and not on the testers themselves as >>1801425 and >>1804230 suggested.

Also take note of >>1804535 and >>1804336

>you're basically encouraging the state to execute people for the benefits of research

pretty much sums it up

>>1804572
Well, yes - even if it would be pissing into an ocean of piss.

>>1804589
I meant to say, "like adding a maraschino cherry to the top of a mountain-sized sundae", but I somehow got sidetracked with shitposting on 4chan.

>>1797002
Aside from unequiteable violation of autonomy and possible future legal quandaries, do you understand how actual research is conducted?

If you were do experimentation on deathrow, or prison inmates in general, you will ALWAYS have a third variable of 'being in prison'.

For example,
if you were to test some sort of psychoactive drug, and the participant starts slamming his bed walls, tears his bolted-on-bed off the wall or displays unusual paranoiac behaviors. you wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether it's the actual drug itself, if it's the stressors of being kept in a prison on death row, or both combined.

It's beyond uninformed.

>>1804434
soldiering needs discipline
these have none nor loyalty to anyone but themselfs
you are also underaged

>>1804948
I don't think "psychoactive drugs" would be tested. More like new blood pressure medication...where being in prison plays no factor in their effectiveness.

No.
Human experiments have been proven to be useless and provide little help.
Studying a body after it is dead may have some use but that's about it.

>>1804434
>Sounds like the perfect shock-and-awe team
They weren't. When they actually faced a disciplined enemy, they got utterly destroyed because they weren't actually soldiers.

As it turns out, they could only commit atrocities against unarmed women and children.

>>1805010
Are clinical trials for new pharmaceuticals not human experiments?

>>1804987
I'm not sure, even if less intensive drugs or treatments are tested, surely a fair case can be made that prison is strenuous circumstances, and persons in strenuous circumstances can't reliably be said to represent the average population, and by the way the question is phrased seems to imply to me that the situation would be coercive, which seems to make matters worse.

Further, death row inmates aren't exactly of a diverse strata, and represent 0.013% of prisoners who represent 0.91% in the U.S.

Even then, I have a tough time seeing all researchers being unbiased when conducting experimentation.