convicted murderers should be subjected to scientific research testing

Da_Inscrutable_1: convicted criminals who have violated our laws, ethics and safety in so many ways dnt deserve to be thrown in jail to live on the free food supplies, nor do they deserve the govt to spend funds on persecution expenses. if anything, they deserve to contribute back to society in the fullest extent possible, and it should be allowable by law, they these criminals be subjected to research labs to take the place of animal testings.

think about it...we can transform villains into heros

Gully: not even the greatest of masters can take even a single step for his student, there's no right way to do the wrong thing. We get in life what we ask for; we get in life what we earn, nothing just happens, things are made to happen. Criminals don't deserve our support, nor do they deserve our help. The willingness of the student dictates his worthiness to know. I see The removal of criminals from our society as not only advisable, but mandatory, and I don't refer to legality, but morality, criminals that offend the nature of the universe.

WOLF KING VOLTAX: Hell Yeah Da_

Da_Inscrutable_1: @ Gully
but what do they deserve? certainly not a medal of honor! i just dnt agree with today's punishments against them as it costs us a great deal of our limited resources. But if we somehow, all agree to give these villains hero costumes and let them repay society for the harm they've done, i dnt see the limit in that decision. if the government can declare war that kills helpless people and claim that its for the common good, then the unwilling sacrifice of these murderers, who deserve death anyway, should be allowable by law. js

Gully: I see criminals as deserving of death, but as I said, not all criminals, there's much to be said for variables, my basic point is that stupid should hurt, but not for everyone. Why do they deserve continuing in our society, as anything, having only proven their willingness to ignore reality, to instead dwell on their selective awareness? Unresolved problems have many lives. The quickest way to move past a problem is to solve it. I simply suggest we muster the courage to do what needs to be done.

Illuminatist: Da_lnscrutabIe_1:" convicted criminals who have violated our laws, ethics and safety in so many ways dnt deserve to be thrown in jail to live on the free food supplies, nor do they deserve the govt to spend funds on persecution expenses. if anything, they deserve to contribute back to society in the fullest extent possible, and it should be allowable by law, they these criminals be subjected to research labs to take the place of animal testings.

think about it...we can transform villains into heros"





You have been reading the thoughts of one Solomon Tulbure Haven't you?

Czar Bree: as much as I love that idea. it is probably a bad one.

Comrade_: hmm there will be a lot gain in human experimentation. I know the Nazi's did it and their research has been used. I always hold that we hold a lot of secret within us that is waiting to be explored, our brains/minds, our genes, our structure. Beautiful.
But I'm leaning on disagreeing with this. It is a very tricky situation. It raises some issues no doubt:
1) Most experiments will be close to being labelled as 'torturous' and may lead to death.
2) Which 'convicted criminal' will this apply to? In a legal sense what do you understand 'convicted criminal' to be? As I think that there is a range of offences from minor to major that will fall in that bracket.
3) The issue of 'rights'.
4) Why I'm thinking so deep into this...I should be sleeping.

Blackshoes: Yes criminals need to be punish! Yes they should pay! No .they are no less a person or human than anyone else, and need to be treated with the same respect ,and dignity that you or I would like: If everyone got court for breaking the law ",most if not all would be in jail.. It 's easy to point the finger of judgement if you don't own a mirror ..

billy_piper: i thought soldiers and prisoners already were used like this.

Illuminatist: billy_piper: i thought soldiers and prisoners already were used like this.
8 days ago • Report




No, that iz the general population..

violeta23: The nazis used their pseudo-scientific so-called 'research' to justify racism. If I were you, I wouldn't compare potential scientific research on criminals to 'what the Nazis also did.'

Experimentation on unwilling and unconsenting participants is pretty sick. They're still humans - they still have human rights, even if they are criminals and have done awful things. It solves nothing to treat these criminals brutally. We become almost like them.

Blackshoes: Violeta: I was thinking about posting almost the same thing ..However: you said it better than I could have

violeta23: Haha, thanks! Glad I'm not alone in my views

WOLF KING VOLTAX: It's one thing to blindly torture an inmate, it's another to offer inmates cruel experimentation in exchange for reductions in jail time. Hell, they do already do that for things the inmates do for fun. Why not offer inmates things that aren't fun in exchange for a reduction in jail time? As long as it's consensual and not just someone being strapped to a table and cut on with a scalpel by some mad scientist with an agenda and a sadistic side.

violeta23: But I still can't condone barbaric experimentations done on criminals, even if it is supposedly 'consensual'. What kind of example does that set to the rest of society? The state/state institutions can't be seen to perpetuate the same cruel acts that criminals do. It has to set an example of how best to behave, how to be a moral, compassionate citizen.

Not to mention, I'm guessing that a lot of criminals are mentally ill, and so therefore need to be properly understood and helped - not just savagely punished. You don't make progress in society when you adopt such medieval attitudes and methods. We need better insight into criminals and criminal behaviour, we don't achieve that through torturous 'scientific' activity.

WOLF KING VOLTAX: I'm a fan of the death penalty. That makes both sides of this argument happy. There is nothing torturous about one gunshot to the brain and 0.001 seconds of pain and suffering. They only pain is their fear of the gun they see. Or the blindfold over their head while they wait on what is to come.

violeta23: I think it's pretty self-evident that living in a purely vengeful society - where our only solution to reducing crime rates is to "make an example of people" and kill them (countering a barbaric act with another barbaric act is somehow supposed to exemplify how we should behave?) doesn't work and stunts societal growth. We're regressing to a medieval phase of 'you kill him, I kill you' when we must instead seek to understand criminal behaviour and therefore develop greater insight into mental health issues. Can't do that if we've killed them all.

I understand that when we are wronged, we all have a natural need for revenge. I understand that. I struggle with it everyday (on a smaller, much more minor scale, I haven't been severely wronged by someone). But I recognise this mentality is reductive, it achieves nothing. The girl who 'wronged' me isn't a happy person, probably isn't completely well mentally, and needs a lot of support and therapy. We have to move past primal urges, like seeking justice through means such as torture and murder for instance. We have to move past what our emotional brains dictate we should do and listen to what our rational brains tell us instead.

And I don't even have to mention that in states in the U.S where the death penalty is legal, crime rates aren't any lower. The death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent to commit crime.

WOLF KING VOLTAX: You keep preaching mental illness, but most criminals are not mentally ill, they are just criminals. And states that have the death penalty don't enforce it much so that comparison is pretty worthless. New York has the death penalty but hasn't executed anyone since 1978 so having it on the books is worthless there. Death penalties only deter crime if you actually use it. So the current US death penalty system is total crap to begin with.

violeta23: There has to be something abnormal about your character if you're driven to murdering/torturing/raping someone. Not all the time, of course. But I'd say a great deal. That is no way negates the blame/punishment that a criminal deserves, but we must seek to understand WHY criminals do what they do - not simply, reductively, murder them.
If not, then what drives them? An inherent 'evil' gene, haha?

And as far as the last part goes...I was under the impression that the death penalty hasn't lowered crime rates. I can't say for sure on that last part though because I'm British.

WOLF KING VOLTAX: No penalty deters crime when a criminal knows they get free food, cable tv, exercise equipment, and 6 months of playing around and then released. Especially when they get told that their sentence can be reduced from something like 10 years to 2 years just by taking free classes to learn skills and trades that hard working americans can't afford to pay for themselves. So yeah, there is no incentive to improve when you are given tons of luxeries while behind bars.

violeta23: Isn't the stripping of your liberties punishment enough? Not being able to do as you please - go where you please? Not able to see your family/friends when you want to and for as long as you want to? Or go to the cinema and see that movie? To be locked up in a cell for hours on end - sharing a room for years with another strange man?
I agree we need to be tougher on our prisoners, it's not a free holiday camp after all. But never the dealth penalty. It's fucking barbaric. You make zero progress when you re-introduce capital punishment. Killing a criminal is an easy, highly simplistic solution to such a complex issue as crime. You have to look 'big picture' at improving society which means seeking out the best ways to lower crime rates (which the dealth penalty definitely doesn't do). A similar analogy is legalising guns to protect society - paradoxically, a weapon used to kill and thus destroy the safety of its citizens. Yeaaah....no.

WOLF KING VOLTAX: Live in a society where guns are legal for civilians to own and carry before voicing an opinion on guns control. That way you can actually have a decent opinion about it. And it's in the American constitution that Americans have the right to bear arms. Which means one of the founding principles of the USA states that gun ownership is at the discretion of the people and not the government.

violeta23: "Live in a society where guns are legal for civilians to own and carry before voicing an opinion on guns control."

Makes no sense.. I can't have an opinion on something purely because I've never experienced it directly? What kind of bullshit logic is that?

It's illegal to own a gun in the UK - and guess what? I'm a damn lot safer than you. Know how many shooting masscres (and more specifically, number of innocent people fucking shot by lunatics) there's been in the UK in the past 10/20/30 years? Take a guess.

Approximately zero, is the answer you're looking for.

We don't live in a society where the people make the laws and the people (and potential lunatics) decide what is just. That's why we have the state to, hopefully, govern us appropriately. When innocent people are murdered, a law such as whether you have a right to bear arm is no longer at 'the people's discretion.' It's a national issue. It must be dealt with and solved as a government issue because it no longer just involves you - it affects everybody in severely tragic ways.
And yeah, advocating for increased state intervention and control IS Socialism. Fuck yeaaah!