h a l f b a k e r yPoof of concept
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
A prisoner on death row should be kept alive and we should systematically disassemble their body to benefit ill people. Heart, lungs, corneas, skin, bone marrow, blood, the list is endless.
For those with leseer crimes they could "buy" time off their sentence for doanating "parts" such as kidney,
bone marrow, cornea, etc.
Let's turn "death row" into "Life Row"!
The Thing With Two Heads
http://www.badmovie.../thingtwoheads.html
...and a machine that goes *PING* [thumbwax, Oct 04 2004]
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
http://caselaw.lp.f...tution/amendment08/
[my face your, Oct 04 2004]
Right to life, right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
http://www.ex.ac.uk...pro/humanrights.htm
[my face your, Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
This has been done many times in Science Fiction, Larry Niven even theorized that demand for organs would reach a point where parking violations might get the death sentence. |
|
| |
Don't they do this in (the P.R. of) China? Or is that just a rumor? |
|
| |
Except that, as [Dimandja] points out, they kill them first, then harvest the organs. The present idea is to keep the prisoner alive while harvesting organs not needed in order to live. The part that doesn't make sense here is that there's probably not such a big demand for organs not needed in order to live. |
|
| |
As I understand it, life support does the job of your organs whilst you are incapacitated. This being the case (if this is the case, I await correction on this!), how many and which organs could be harvested? |
|
| |
As for the idea, have a fishbone removed from a murderous cod. You may not have noticed, but prisoners about to be killed by the state are treated very humanely up to the point of execution. Treating prisoners as grab bags of organs would remove any pretence of humanity from the act. |
|
| |
If new evidence comes to light proving innocence, do they get the organs back again? |
|
| |
This is a reprehensible idea. |
|
| |
But it's worth it for [egbert]'s question. |
|
| |
//For those with leseer crimes they could "buy" time off their sentence for doanating "parts" such as kidney, bone marrow, cornea, etc.// |
|
| |
The concept behind organs donated after execution is the same, but real-world practical. In a certain country (we'll call it Elbonia), those convicted are stripped of their assets (which generally go the family of the victim) and their organs, which are given to society. |
|
| |
There are serious ethical questions with either approach, especially considering socio-economic questions it would raise. To a great extent, the ethical standards that we know are a product of our cultural heritage and there are some societies/cultures that don't share our views on these issues (at least not in the same way.) |
|
| |
//they kill them first, then harvest the organs// |
|
| |
There's really no benefit to disassembling piecewise. Demand will always exceed supply. I understand that there are 'teaching hospitals' neighbouring the Elbonian execution grounds so recipients waiting in line can get a fresh one. These teaching hospitals are AFAIK partly funded by brisk business business from foreigners. Therefore, the courts can't process the accused fast enough to keep up with demand. Once emptied of everything useful, what's left is cremated and returned to the donor's family for collection. |
|
| |
//Larry Niven even theorized that demand for organs would reach a point where parking violations might get the death sentence.// |
|
| |
I watched a documentary where they were investigating a crime in an Elbonian village where there'd been a brawl that had gotten out of control and led to the death of one of the participants. The others were't charged with murder, because of the difficulty of proving motive, etc. but instead chearged with the lesser crime of 'Afray' (whatever that means) because the standard sentence was the same anyway. The accused was processed in the usual way. An appeal is automatic, but more administrative than a second chance, after which its the quick step to the bang-chop-chop. |
|
| |
[landman], I'm sorry for taking your idea so seriously. Unfortunately silly ideas sometimes become reality. Probably the reality in Elbonia came about when someone came up with the same silly idea and someone else through it made sense. |
|
| |
I'm with ya!! I wrote this for another purpose, but it supports you.
-----------------------------------------------
While there is no way to repay the debt of taking a life, a close second would be saving a life.
This could be accomplished by forcing convicted murderers to donate kidneys, bone marrow and whatever else could save a life without jeopardizing the donor by any great extent. The nickname “Lifer” would take on a new meaning. For the recipient of the death penalty, it should be mandatory that their organs be distributed to those who need them.
While the ACLU folks are putting their eyes back in their heads, consider this scenario:
Sunburned and mad, Mr. Howell snaps and kills all of the women on the island. Skipper lay dying; in need of a kidney. The Professor is left with choices three. Does he:
a.) Let Skipper die?
b.) Open Gilligan (the Skipper’s little buddy) for the parts he needs? - or,
c.) Give peace to Lovey and the girls, take a load off Gilligans mind, and salvage the only good remaining in Mr. Howell.
We need donors, I don’t think anybody will dispute that, but the levity of the situation is as follows: US government statistics indicate that approximately 3000 people die every year because organs are not available. In addition, in 1994 alone 27,498 people were on the waiting list for a kidney and only 10,231 people got one.
The primary reason for using murderers as donors is that they owe it to us. Don’t you feel like putting your hand out and saying “O.K. O.J. cough it up!”?
Lastly, a common strategy in chess & checkers is to give up one to take many, the murderers are using it and winning the game. We’re overlooking the fact that we have the power to force them to give pieces back. While that may not be the winning strategy we’re looking for, it will keep the odds closer to even until we think of one.
I’m not proposing donations that would seriously compromise or endanger the donor, nor would it be torture - ask an ex POW or Rodney King what torture is and anesthesia won’t come up. Beyond that, I’m not advocating the use of these people as Mr.Potatohead parts outlets. It is reasonable to believe that as a society rife with militant rights obsessed extremist groups and more than 1 ambulance chaser per 69 humans, we could devise some overly humane program to implement this concept. |
|
| |
Not to get wrapped up in semantics but, vengeance would have the state killing a man’s sister to repay him for killing another man’s sister. Whereas forcing him to “do good”, at some expense to himself, to help make up for “doing bad” - sounds more like the moral lessons we teach our children. I realize that clean living generally isn’t the rule of thumb in the murderer sect, and that many of the resources they bring to the table may be compromised or unusable, so the dent it makes would be more apt to be a ding, but if it saves one person - I’ll take it. |
|
| |
i think this could be a good idea |
|
| |
i think it should only apply to deathrow |
|
| |