Social Question

Rebelwoman's avatar

What's your opinion on Replacing animals being tested with life sentenced inmates?

Asked by Rebelwoman (78points) April 20th, 2010

So I read something about the death penalty, and all stuff on rapeist and murderers. I believe some are wrongfully accused and I do believe a person has a right to defend one’s self.
My question is, for those who weren’t wrongfully accused, and those who are in life for murder or something similar or just as bad, putting them in place of our innocent animals? I never understood why people never thought of this. Those who are in for life they can be a huge help to testing stuff. I know animals are tested with cosmetics and hair stuff. I’m talking about simple easy testing such as soap, rashes, allergies. We can test better on people anyways. It might even bring the crime down. I think putting those poor animals through that harsh treatment is just awful. Animals cant speak to you. People can.
So what is your two cents? What do you think? Ever thought of this for punishment?
Replace the animals and the animal research with people. Of course it wouldn’t be stuff that could kill (like I did readers back in High School about research about cancer with rats) stuff like that wouldn’t be right. But like soap and what not. Stuff we can cure.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

35 Answers

squidcake's avatar

Sorry, it took my a long time to actually understand what you were asking…

It, theoretically, does make more sense. But the public would never go for it. People get all butt-hurt and creeped out when they see that kind of “testing” on humans, but they’ll gladly eat their genetically modified burgers in blissful ignorance.

It’s the same reason that experimenting on aborted fetuses is, still, severely limited. People take one look and say “How could you do that?! That could have been a baby!” They ignore the fact that it could save millions of lives in the long run.

janbb's avatar

Sounds like something that was done in Germany about 60 years ago.

squidcake's avatar

Should have known someone would drop the Holocaust bomb eventually.

RedPowerLady's avatar

No I do not believe in it. For one you cannot account for those who are wrongly accused which happens disproportionally in communities of color.
On another note you never know where it will end. Start with murders end with misdemeanors.

dpworkin's avatar

My question is, for those who weren’t wrongfully accused,

Wrongfully accused? What are they doing in prison, then? You see where this breaks down?

Rebelwoman's avatar

jan- So why did they stop? Out of curiosity. And I did to animal cruelty and testing in high school as a subject and yea everyone was freaked out. I did horse slaughter in my ag class and the girls just about barfed everywhere and my teacher told me to turn it off.

Squid- I have no issue if they are dead. If they were once a baby, and wasn’t able to survive and could’ve killed the mom okay that’s alright. I dont’ beliave in abortion and totaly AGAISNT partial abortion, but, some do save lives

DarkScribe's avatar

@squidcake Sigh…

What is your problem with the comment? It was quite valid. It was done in Germany sixty years ago. The reaction to what happened then would be far worse if it was allowed to happen now – because of what happened then.

Rebelwoman's avatar

DP- Those who were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time and tried to help the people and was accused of doing it. (I’ve heard stories of that) Hense wrongfully accused. It does happen.

Red what exactly do you mean?

Dark- What exactly happened then? Curiosity.

squidcake's avatar

It’s just the fact that people use the Holocaust as an excuse to end debate on something. They make a reference to it and everyone else, in fear of offending someone, has to shut their mouths.

Trillian's avatar

Actually, there was a convicted criminal who donated his body to science that is on display somewhere. He was vivisected and apparently science did learn a lot. He volunteered though, which I feel makes all the difference. He actually made a contribution to society. Great. Maybe there could be offers made asking for volunteers, but I would not further subject a person to something potentially maiming or….(shudders)
No. Not without informed consent. No.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@Rebelwoman What exactly is confusing?

eponymoushipster's avatar

let’s put the money towards spelling lessons for fluther users.

ragingloli's avatar

It would go not only against the very first article in our constitution, but also against everything our society is based on, the inviolability of human dignity.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@eponymoushipster if it was me just say so, i have a good excuse, haha

Rebelwoman's avatar

“On another note you never know where it will end. Start with murders end with misdemeanors” that was confuseing to me Red… Please explain further.

Squid you’re right. I am a bit hesitent to offend. But it’s just curiosity, I read a post about this stuff and it came to mind so I thought I’d do my own thread about it. See what people thought.

Trill- I wonder what made him decide that?

Epony- I apologize for my spelling. I got alot on my mind and my hands to not always type as fast as my head does. I’m sorry.

Rag- But we can put people under with the lethal enjection? That’s against the first article. I don’t know. Maybe I got deeper then I wanted to.. I just wanted to see what people would say. I think it’d further help our country if we were able to better understand science and who is better to tell us then those who are rotting in a jail cell? I don’t see it fair either way. What those people did, nor what happens to them. ANimals are just as cruel I suppose

ragingloli's avatar

not in my country.

RedPowerLady's avatar

@Rebelwoman The idea is that you may start requiring this for murderers. But end up requiring it for petty crimes. Because that is how an abusive system often works. If it ends up being profitable (and surely it would be) then they would start looking for more crimes that fit the bill until eventually all crimes do.

janbb's avatar

@Rebelwoman What happened 60 years ago in Germany is thatt Jews, Romaniis and gays were considered “other”’,put in camps.and medical experiments of a vile nature were done on them.

@squidcake I wasn’t trying to stifle debte but for many of us what happened in the Holocaust is a touchstone for many ethical issues today. I was trying to make the point that denying any group of people their human rights is a slippery slope.

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

It turns us into incredibly cruel people.

Coloma's avatar

I had entertained this same idea in my idealistic youth..but no.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Kahlil Gibran

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. It may have been thought of but shot down just as taking convicted murderers and putting them in pay-per-view death matches and using the proceeds to compensate the victims. It is not like no one won’t watch, I am sure it would have grossed more than Avatar to see a match to the death of say Scott Peterson and John Malvo etc. But we as a society want to try to appear civilized and not like barbarians or Rome (slaughter in make believe on the sliver screen and in video games are good to go all day) Plus if someone had his conviction overturned or he/she died and was later found to be innocent the law suits would fly hard and thick.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

I wouldn’t support it because to me it’s inhumane and a form of torture. I feel particular rapists, molesters and murderers should be put to death rather than serve life sentences but that doesn’t mean I want them killed in horrible ways or made to suffer. They are threats to the rest of society and should be removed without us having to incur the costs of their support, quickly and as painlessly as possible. Guillotine anyone?

wundayatta's avatar

@squidcake Should have known there would be someone who doesn’t believe history has any lessons to teach us. Sigh.

dpworkin's avatar

@Coloma That would have been Mohandas Gandhi who said that.

Coloma's avatar



I was just reading some Gibran..transference. lol

Kraigmo's avatar

Humans are already tested on, and prisoners should be able to volunteer (with no deals and no coercion).

Human drugs and cosmetics, at some point, must be tested on humans.
Let the veterinary medicines be tested on animals.

Open any alternative weekly newspaper and you’ll see all sorts of Pharmaceutical Drug Trials seeking (presumably low-income people) volunteers for $500 a test. Should that be stopped? I think it’s valid. And so would be offering the same thing to prisoners who meed the standards of the testing.

We also need to look at the U.S. Prison System: ⅓ of criminals probably shouldn’t even be there, having been convicted of drug related crimes. We should never treat prisoners worse than animals, no matter what.

And as far as those torturous animals tests, such as the cat brain implants at UCLA, or the monkey-spine-smashing done at Louisiana State…. those tests come out of a sadistic streak in the students and scientists involved in the tests, and we don’t need to do those kind of tests on animals OR prisoners.

wundayatta's avatar

Frankly, this is a heinous idea, and there is not a research operation in this country that would allow such research to be supported or approved. There are very strict rules about research using human subjects, and this kind of thing is way wrong, based on a history of horrible research methods used by, yes, Nazi Germany, and the research that victimized the Tuskeegee airmen (deliberately given syphilis. Here’s a little history of research ethics if you really care to look at them.

It boggles my mind that anyone who seems to care so much about animals doesn’t give a shit about certain humans. What do they teach in schools these days?

anartist's avatar

I think it is possible that in some circumstances prisoners can VOLUNTEER for such things, maybe for hope of a parole, but to just choose to use other humans as guinea pigs, can’t be justified. Letting condemned prisoners volunteer for hellacious battle zones during wartime—is that just movies? And condemned prisoners can and have donated their bodies for research. A virtual man was created by scanning slices of the cadaver of an executed man.
Visible Human Project

Zaku's avatar

I’d rather use people who hunt baby seals, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, etc…

anartist's avatar

Must get Sarah to volunteer, though.

Coloma's avatar

No baby seals…evil at it’s finest! :-(

Jewel's avatar

Only if they volunteer.

ETpro's avatar

I would support a program where lifers or death-row inmates could gain special privileges for volunteering to advance the cause of science. But to force it on them would be unconstitutional, as it would clearly be cruel and unusual punishment. It is hard to argue that it is cruel to do these things to white rats, but not cruel so long as it is humans.

mattbrowne's avatar

The ancient Egyptians and Greeks did this.

Today most societies think that ‘the dignity of human beings is inviolable – to respect and protect it shall be the duty of all public authority.’

Rebelwoman's avatar

@wundayatta- I don’t know what there teaching in school. I droppped out it wasn’t worth staying in. My opinion about school was left against right winged and if you were indipendent or had a mind of your own you were casted out. I wasn’t going to be a zombie for 4 years.

The whole Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind. With what I been through honestly I’d rather be blind. The world isn’t as great as it once was. Teenagers aren’t how they used to be, people my age are still stupid and having kids left and right. There is disease and it’s just not great.

Yes there is alot who shouldn’t be in jail. However; I know one who should be in jail, but I didn’t send him to it.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther