What if we let it be up to the convicted individual if they want to be considered for human experiments or not? Then they can make a choice that will potentially lessen their served jail time, or provide them with some kind of benefits, to be a guinea pig and help the scientific community.Yes, I'm well aware that the horrors of the halocaust were caused by similar beliefs. But the Nazi psychology was defective.
I think if you'd ask any group of people to pinpoint society's undesirables, you'll find "murderers, rapists, and thieves" comes up more often than "blacks, jews, and muslims." There is a pretty clear moral core among people that transcends culture and society. In nearly every society (and I haven't heard of the exception) it is wrong to inflict unprovoked harm.
Why shouldn't the people who do so be candidates for the knife of science? It's a wellness compaign... a "get along with others or we'll force you to be of benefit" kind of thing. I don't know. I can't stand against it because I see the reasoning for torturing criminal human beings as stronger than that for torturing innocent animals.
All murderers and rapists are just animals in their own right, anyway.
If we're willing to execute people (thus throwing away perfectly good testing subjects) then we should be willing to expirement on them. Anything else implies a contradiciton in terms.
