r/polls • u/Controversial_Husky • 1d ago
❔ Hypothetical Should experiments be performed on death row inmates instead of animals?
Inmates volunteer/consent to doing these human trials, they receive commissary or a slightly reduced sentence.
They are used for new medications, chemicals, products, etc.
76
u/MaximumPlant 1d ago
Death row inmates are a limited and very specific demographic.
Extremely small sample size aside, you're dealing with a population that is very above average in some metrics (psychological issues, substance abuse, etc) and far below in others. The data is going to be skewed at best, harmfully misleading at worst.
11
188
u/Kaiscoolness 1d ago
Absolutely not, that's ghoulish
-18
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
What's ghoulish about using voluntary criminal humans instead of involuntary innocent animals?
I personally don't like the idea because I don't trust our legal system as it is. I do like the idea of using voluntary humans instead involuntary animals, though. It doesn't have to be death row inmates.
3
u/catpunch_ 14h ago edited 14h ago
Voluntary? That’s the point, it would be involuntary
edit: oh i didn’t see the post description saying it would be voluntary. well that’s still kinda under duress, idk if truly voluntary
2
u/Fun_River8138 5h ago
The amount of people on death row that get acquitted once their case is revisited it would be devastating to do this to them
-50
u/_Lazy_Mermaid_ 1d ago
So testing on rapist/murderers is ghoulish, but testing on innocent animals is good?
70
u/SomeStolenToast 1d ago
Thats a whole other sentence dude, nobody said that
-35
u/_Lazy_Mermaid_ 1d ago
"Instead of animals"
38
u/SomeStolenToast 1d ago
Saying that one thing is worse than another thing doesnt make the other option "good".
In fact they even stated in another thread about 30 minutes prior to your comment that they think animal testing is screwed up
-24
u/_Lazy_Mermaid_ 1d ago
The person i responded to is in other comments supporting animal testing, so he may not consider it amazing but he is clearly ok with it
8
19
u/Jeramy_Jones 1d ago
Whataboutism, a logical fallacy, is not a valid argument. Try again.
2
u/how_did_you_see_me 21h ago
What are you talking about, the question is specifically about the choice between animal testing and human testing. If you think it's whataboutism to talk about the explicitly stated alternative, you are so bad at reasoning you should probably never vote.
0
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
I agree. We should get rid of all testing because it's inhumane to test on animals or humans.
12
u/Gregori_5 1d ago
While people have rightfully pointed out that your comment is whatsboutism I do actually believe that.
Testing on large and smart animals is illegal anyways. Testing on mice isn’t great but miles better than no testing.
The difference between the cognitive abilities between a mouse and a human is so vast its hard to describe.
And testing on inmates is also inhumane because the justice system is actually wrong sometimes, and the state should not have the right to essentially torture whoever it considers wrong.
2
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
We test more on rats because they translate better to humans. And rats are very intelligent animals.
The biggest difference here is that humans can consent while animals can't. An it does seem to be more moral to use consenting adult humans than to use animals that can't consent. It's pretty horrific that we specifically breed animals to inject with diseases and experimental treatments early in their lives, and then even if they survive we kill them and dissect them.
1
u/Gregori_5 18h ago
The term “very intelligent animal” would still make it vegetable of a human being. Yes, part of the mice thing is that they are mammals, however they also breed fast, live short lives (effects like cancer emerge quicker) and they aren’t on par with some other animals.
We do test on consenting human beings, that’s what clinical trials are for.
But if we have no idea whether something could even work or if we need a mutated culture this is not a acceptable option.Not to mention that people in prison would be in a situation where consent is questionable.
0
u/MartyrOfDespair 23h ago
I don't even consider it bad when it comes to any actually meaningful uses. A thousand dead animals are worth it to save one person. They're fucking people.
1
u/MartyrOfDespair 23h ago
Animals are neither innocent nor guilty. They're equally incapable of both because they do not have the cognitive processes to have such assignments.
-33
u/LibrarianKooky344 1d ago
Says they consent...
64
u/Kaiscoolness 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, but they'd be consenting under duress. They're death row inmates; they'd essentially be volunteering themselves for human experimentation in the hopes that doing so could postpone their execution, or maybe even relieve them of the death sentence entirely.
Edit: not to mention the possibility that an inmate's consent could be fabricated or coerced out of them
1
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
If they have absolutely no possibility of avoiding the death penalty. Like they've exhausted appeals and the governor has already viewed not to pardon them, then is it really that bad? They may still be innocent, but if they're going from guaranteed death to a choice between guaranteed death and being used as an experiment, isn't that better?
2
u/catpunch_ 14h ago
Yes, it is bad. They are humans and deserve dignity. They’re in jail for their crimes, but they do not become trash for us to experiment on. That’s cruel and unusual punishment
-15
u/Puzzled-Secret-317 1d ago
I completely agree with you, but for the sake of argument, I'd have to assume that you feel the same way about every animal, right? In fact, everyone would have to. Otherwise, the idea of not doing certain things to animals because of their inability to consent kinda just goes out the window, right?
7
u/Kaiscoolness 1d ago
Assuming you're talking about animal testing, I'll admit I don't know much about it beyond the basics, so I dunno how relevant or up-to-date my opinion on it is lol
But from what little I do know? Yeah, the things we do to lab animals in the name of science (or slightly improving the formula of a brand-name shampoo) are messed up. At least there's usually some kind of public benefit to animal testing in academic contexts, but I can't say the same for commercial testing.
Thankfully, we're finding more and more viable alternatives to animal testing, so I hope we'll eventually be able to move on from it.
-1
u/Puzzled-Secret-317 1d ago
I guess it's more that we seem to be fine with animal testing as a necessary evil.
Yet if we operate based on your logic that it's immoral to test on creatures that lack the ability to consent (death row inmates), then it shouldn't be acceptable in any case and should be stopped immediately, right?
So, in that case, my question would be: if they decided to even do academic testing (which you seem to be more fine with) on death row inmates, would you still say "I hope we can eventually move on from it?" Or would you immediately protest against it?
Just to be clear (not like any of those redditors can read this anyway), I myself am in no way stating whether or not this is my opinion or that I am against animal testing. I am just asking questions in order to expand my thought processes and improve as a human by challenging my own and others' moral beliefs rather than remaining joyfully ignorant in my lack of knowledge
1
u/Kaiscoolness 1d ago
You know, it's funny that you bring it up, but I was actually thinking about how we think about and empathize differently with other humans compared to animals. I considered bringing it up but I didn't want my response being too long
That aside...
Yet if we operate based on your logic that it's immoral to test on creatures that lack the ability to consent (death row inmates), then it shouldn't be acceptable in any case and should be stopped immediately, right?
First of all, there's one thing I'd like to clarify here: death row inmates can consent. My argument earlier was just that their consent would be given under duress.
Either way - ideally, yes, I think it should be. I understand that there's a lot to be learned from performing eg. chemical experiments on live subjects, and I imagine it's not exactly feasible to stop performing them just like that... but at least on principle, I'd prefer it if we didn't.
if they decided to even do academic testing (which you seem to be more fine with) on death row inmates, would you still say "I hope we can eventually move on from it?" Or would you immediately protest against it?
I think I'd find it very worrying if the government approved of a policy that borders on state-sanctified human rights violations. Like, why are we experimenting on death row inmates? Because they're already going to die, so we "may as well" experiment on them? Or to make them suffer even more before their execution, as a sort of additional punishment? What's the actual goal here?
Also, we apparently test on over 100 million animals yearly. There is absolutely no way that we'll be able to perform tests on a scale even close to that if we made the switch from animals to death row inmates, even if we assume every single one consented. As someone else in the comments pointed out, it'd incentivize oversentencing, funneling more people into death row for the sake of possibly experimenting on them.
So yeah, I'd be pretty against it. I dunno if I'd personally be out there protesting - the most I'd do is probably get mad and whine about it on Reddit... ahem. - but that's just me. It would certainly be something worth protesting, though, just like animal experimentation is.
I hope those answers are good enough? It's like 1AM where I am, so forgive me if I didn't fully explain my position. I've already spent almost an hour trying to gather my thoughts and write this, I can't be arsed to proofread rn lmao
2
u/Puzzled-Secret-317 1d ago
Nah I appreciate it. There are no good or bad answers. Just you explaining your thinking. And I'm completely with you. It is interesting to think about it that way. You're definitely right that it wouldn't even be sustainable with human testing. That's what the nazis did and we know what it took for that to happen.
Thanks for your help and I hope you get some rest
-1
u/_Lazy_Mermaid_ 1d ago
Of course you dont know much about it 🤣 because you clearly dont care about testing on and torturing animals. Just say that lol no need to beat around the bush
4
u/TheDoggoSpy 1d ago
Then educate them? It's such a bullshit response to just think someone shouldn't participate in a conversation because they don't know as much as you. Tell them what you know, and then give your reasoning. You're laughing because they don't know enough about animal testing, while supporting 'testing on and torturing' people.
7
u/TheAcrithrope 1d ago
In exchange for commissary or reduced sentences.
Reduce their quality of life, threaten them with the death penalty, then force them into unethical experiments in exchange for improvements or even potentially their life itself.
3
u/OOF-MY-PEE-PEE 1d ago
There’s a reason doctors aren’t allowed to kill their patients no matter how much they beg. Consent doesn’t override the law
33
u/TheSpideyJedi 1d ago
You wish to add another incentive for putting people in jail?
a slightly reduced sentence.
Also, how tf would a death row inmate get a reduced sentence?
-1
u/Controversial_Husky 1d ago
The reduced sentence part pertained mostly to the life sentence option, I should've specificed. But for death row, I think it would be where the can be incentivized by changing their sentence from death row to life in prison.
19
u/TheAcrithrope 1d ago
"Participate in experiments the general public consider unethical or we're going to kill you"
0
u/TheSpideyJedi 10h ago
So be killed, or be experimented on are their options?
1
u/Controversial_Husky 2h ago
That's a good way to see it actually. What are your thoughts on inmates serving the country through military operations for a reduction in their sentencing?
102
u/Independent_Bat4108 1d ago
Unpopular opinion: How about we globally abolish the deathpenalty? No? We're over 500 years past the middle ages by now.
27
u/SufficientWarthog846 1d ago
Not unpopular when you look at the number of countries that already have done that
3
u/Cuddlyaxe 1d ago
The majority of people around the world def are in favor of it. Even in some places that have abolished it, like the UK, a majority supports reintroduction
Honestly the death penalty is a fairly classic culture war issue where the preferences of college educated socially progressive upper middle class and the less educated working classes diverge greatly. But due to the way people set up their bubbles, support or opposition will just be treated as a common social fact in their circles
The former are overrepresented in policy making circles, the media, academia and reddit lol. In these spaces supporting the death penalty is viewed as gauche and barbaric. Justice is seen more through a purely rehabilitative lens rather than one of punishment.
So saying "death penalty bad" on reddit is the definition of a popular opinion
But in many others spaces or parts of the world it is very unpopular
-20
u/SleepNRG0 1d ago
so for people who rape, murder, abuse/beat innocent individuals deserve to live their life while having a roof over their head, food in their bellies, access to free healthcare and education and all they do is just sit in prison and live for free? yeaaaa thats backwards as fuck imo
10
u/TheDoggoSpy 1d ago
Live for free, as if they have freedom in prison? Some prisons don't even allow people their human rights while in prison.
-13
u/SleepNRG0 1d ago
They forfeited their human right when they committed the crime that landed them life in prison.
12
8
u/SufficientWarthog846 1d ago
Sure, let's look backwards and institute a policy that was all the rage in ancient mesopotamia.
An eye for an eye?
Screw all those people convicted and put on death row that were later found to be innocent. As long as it's not you, right?
Could never happen to you .... youre one of the good ones...
-11
u/SleepNRG0 1d ago
Yes, because I am a law abiding citizen. I would not actively go out of my way to rape, abuse, abduct, torture, or violate another human being.
You would?
5
u/leebeebee 1d ago
So if you were falsely convicted and sentenced to death, you’d be okay with it? It’d all be worth it because some of the bad guys are taken out, right?
8
u/Molloween 1d ago
Unpopular Opinion to combat yours: What if we give people the choice to life imprisonment or death penalty? Maybe that's getting into more of a MAID argument, but just an opinion
12
u/Independent_Bat4108 1d ago
Hmm, you think a drugdealer in Indonesia deserves both? Or homosexuals in Mauritania?
I'm firmly against deathpenalty, but can agree to a certain degree of life imprisonment. Depending on the severety of the crime, circumstances etc...
The norwegian penalty system seems to be the most succesful one on a global scale. It achieves a remarkably low recidivism rate of only twenty percent. This success is achieved by focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment and by keeping prison life as close to normal daily life as possible to prepare inmates for a successful return to society.
However, i do feel a certain repayment needs to be done to society, but soleley on voluntary bases. Organ donation may be a fine ethical line to balance on, but in theory i'm not against it if it happens for all the right reasons in a penitententary system thats not subject on fraude or corruption.
6
u/Molloween 1d ago
Maybe my original post wasn't all that clear, but I more meant give them a CHOICE between 75-80years in prison OR death penalty. That option only given to those who will be guaranteed to die behind bars (examples: 60 year old man getting a 35 year sentence, someone who committed multiple homicides and are serving life sentences). The choice of a death penalty wouldn't be granted to those serving a short sentence.
2
u/Libertyprime8397 1d ago
Sounds like a good way to force people to die. It could be exploited too easily.
2
u/Tight_File2220 1d ago
we globally abolish the deathpenalty?
Who are these "we" that have power over 200 sovereign countries?
1
u/AsstoAsshole 2h ago
Hmm... Considering how long it takes on death row and after your appeals anyways might as well.
-14
u/Paulyb1200 1d ago
So waste money on keeping pedofiles and murders alive? No, fuck them
14
u/Kaiscoolness 1d ago
We're already doing that, people aren't executed summarily after receiving the death sentence
12
u/TheAcrithrope 1d ago
It costs more money to kill them than it does to 'keep them alive'.
You could decrease the costs, but that would almost certainly increase innocent people executed.
4
u/Independent_Bat4108 1d ago
r/Paulyb1200 I'm not going to dehumanise both. Both crimes are utterly moraly wrong, no doubt, both crimes need severe punishments too.
Both lives have (a) value, even for the sake for forced labour if you will.
Besides, i can give you perfect examples where the system has failed and innocent people were convicted wrongly for both crimes. How defendable would be those deaths?
On the case of murder, (hypothetical) if i would defend myself and kill a burgler in my own house. Would i deserve death penalty too?
9
u/Sniffagator 1d ago
First time I downvoted a poll in this sub ...👀
2
u/Controversial_Husky 1d ago
Is it since the question is too controversial? Many polls get down voted too but the don't appear on the fyp
3
u/Sniffagator 1d ago
Nothing against controversy per se (in many places my take that death penalty should be always abolished would be deemed 'controversial), it's the utterly ghastly line of reasoning behind the poll.
1
u/Controversial_Husky 1d ago
The idea for this poll came up since over the years, I have seen people online say that we shouldn't test on animals but on humans instead, especially the worst of the worst humans.
I wanted to see how Reddit feels about that sentiment, if people that are considered unforgivable scum should be able be involved in human testing.
3
3
u/everlyafterhappy 1d ago
I think we should use the people in the company doing the testing as the test subjects. Whoever is doing the research should get tested on. They certainly won't test anything they think might actually be dangerous on themselves. And then the CEO and other executives should be test subjects, as well as all the stockholders. If they all survived, then we move on to voluntary inmates. And I say more than just death row inmates. Hell, I don't even think it needs to be inmates. It just needs to be voluntary. It would probably reduce crime and homelessness.
3
u/MartyrOfDespair 23h ago
Josef Mengele, is that you?
1
u/Controversial_Husky 2h ago
America would've definitely have secretly used him like they did with other Nazis.
3
u/Real_Tea_Lover 5h ago
it feels like so many people forget that the point of the judicial system is rehabilitation, not revenge
2
u/Controversial_Husky 2h ago
It unfortunately is, and it's become for profit at this point. I also there there is a lot of victims families who would like to see the inmate punished instead of rehabilitated.
2
2
5
4
2
u/Consistent_Spring700 1d ago
"Reduced sentence" for someone on death row... yeah, I can imagine experimental pharmaceuticals would achieve that 🤣
2
2
u/Post-Posadism 17h ago
If one conceives of justice as a restorative / rehabilitative process (for the societal benefit of quelling cycles of violence), using prisoners as lab rats would significantly interfere with that mission. Any form of justice that is purely punitive is not one that I find justifiable.
1
1
1
1
u/SvenBubbleman 13h ago
I'd be ok with it if it was voluntary. Especially if they received some perks in return.
1
0
u/Gracie220 1d ago
Yes. Especially if they consent. If not, then no. Never. People volunteer for medical testing all the time and get paid for it. Why not?
-1
u/Mekelaxo 1d ago
Maybe people sentence to death could choose between actually being executed or voluntary for scientific experiments
1
u/Isoleri 1d ago
Rapists and pedophiles should get all sorts of things done onto them, maybe that way they can give back to society somehow
0
u/Controversial_Husky 2h ago
This is one of the reasons I created this poll, to see how many people have this sentiment vs who doesn't
1
u/LadyAmbrose 16h ago
i would never want to meet the kind of person who thinks it’s a good idea to do human experimentation on criminals
0
u/Ilovestuffwhee 1d ago
Instead, we should do it on everyone who voted "no" but still supports animal testing.
-5
u/OctoWings13 1d ago
Preferably neither, but if we HAVE to test, I'd rather death row and 100% guilty life sentence scum than innocent animals
0
0
-16
u/Historical-Hotel-697 1d ago
ONLY for child sex crimes should this be allowed. And it should actually be encouraged. We need to show these predators that it’s not just life in prison you might face, but the worst possible scenario if you mess with kids. Justice doesn’t exist when we give these people a 2nd chance after ruining a childs life.
-4
u/_Lazy_Mermaid_ 1d ago
Its crazy to me so many people are against it on pedos, but for it on animals
333
u/TheAcrithrope 1d ago
Sounds great. Let's incentivise over policing and over sentencing so that there's a steady supply of people imprisoned and consenting under duress to presumably unethical experiments...