Instead of just executing criminals (if we're going to do it)

[Polish3d]

I'm actually against the death penalty, but if we are going to have it, why not harvest the organs of those put to death, so that they may serve some purpose other than to have just raped/killed/wasted millions of taxpayer dollars?

I was thinking about it while reading the thread about the piece of shi*T who raped and killed a 10 year old girl...he may get life or the death penalty, but why not take his organs while we're at it and let his waste of a life serve some positive purpose?

 

[CycloWizard]

Probably because this could infringe on some groups' religious beliefs. The donation of organs is not looked well on by everyone (though I'm not sure why they disapprove). Since the government can't trump someone's personal religious beliefs with their laws, they can't mandate organ harvesting. I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's the first that comes to mind.

 

[Polish3d]

So killing them doesn't trump their religious beliefs?

 

[Stunt]

I wouldn't be surprised if criminals are asked to donate.

Although people who are executed are usually in jail for long periods, probably took many drugs, cigarettes, junk food over the years...their parts may be in less than optimal condition.

 

[OrByte]

I wouldn't want a junkie's liver or kidney

but that is just me.

 

[2Xtreme21]

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I wouldn't want a junkie's liver or kidney

but that is just me.

If it were healthy, and you were terminal, I bet you'd take it. And if you wouldn't, plenty of others still would

 

[aidanjm]

on what moral or legal grounds can you simply decide to appropriate those organs? the body parts "belong" to the person being executed. After the execution, the relatives get to decide what happens to the body.

using prisoners as ambulatory body parts factories is obscene. you are treating human beings like a raw commodity such as beef or chicken drumsticks.

where does it stop? why wait until the execution? why not harvest the organs when they are still at their freshest (i.e., when the prisoner is still alive)? why not remove a kidney here, a chunk of liver there? Why not keep the prisoner alive until the organs are required? etc.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I wouldn't want a junkie's liver or kidney

but that is just me.

I bet if you were in the hospital lying on your deathbed, your opinion would change rather fast.

 

[techs]

Great idea. I guess you got it from the Chinese. Who have found that it works even better when you criminalize peoples beliefs so you can have a large pool of ready to go inmates for execution and harvesting.
How sick is your idea?
I'd say very.

 

[Polish3d]

I think the argument that it's acceptable to kill a person by say, frying them in an electric chair but aside from that "OMG their body is their sovereign property" is a little weak. So is your point, Techs

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
on what moral or legal grounds can you simply decide to appropriate those organs? the body parts "belong" to the person being executed. After the execution, the relatives get to decide what happens to the body.

using prisoners as ambulatory body parts factories is obscene. you are treating human beings like a raw commodity such as beef or chicken drumsticks.

No I'm not. Chicken or drumsticks are eaten

 

[Amplifier]

The question is, who owns the condemned. If the state owns the person then it has every right to harvest their organs. I was wondering if this was covered under the 13th amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

After a person is executed it's generally thought that they have repaid their debt to society and are released to their families. So in a sense they are free men, only they're dead free men. So the state doesn't own them.

A more philosophical argument could be made that we are creating incentive for people to be executed. A jury torn between guilty and innocent could feel that by executing the convict they would be saving several innocent people. And more good would come out of their death even if they were innocent. The type of moral dilemma a juror shouldn't face.

Lastly only 60 people were executed in the US in 2005. And not all of their organs would be salvagable. So we'd have this moral and legal controversy whose benefits would be outweighed by it's costs.

 

[eilute]

They could be sentenced to organ donation instead of death. I'm sure it would raise a lot of ethical issues. It could potentially sway the jury. One could try to implement a voluntary donation program though.

 

[her209]

Why wait til they're dead?

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I wouldn't be surprised if criminals are asked to donate.

Although people who are executed are usually in jail for long periods, probably took many drugs, cigarettes, junk food over the years...their parts may be in less than optimal condition.

I'm pretty sure I recall hearing about a guy (or a few guys) who did try to donate their organs. I'll do a little looking...

 

[magomago]

I would think it is similar to the idea of not using prisons to make a profit through things like manufactoring...because then it would turn the prison into a mini business where a simple infraction could get you in, and your release is always delayed...you become a slave laborer because those running the prison are not interested in the release of an employee who works for pennies.

Now to draw an analogy to this...what if more people were tried for the death penalty to we COULD harvest their organs? Do you guys see the problems it opens up? Those who run jails would most certainly want more and more criminals, and more and more death penalties being awarded to harvest more and more organs...regardless of whether or not they wanted the profit, or whether or not they wanted to help others. People would go to jail unjustified, or only partially justified. While this would be taking it to an EXTREME...imagine going to jail for something as simple as jay walking and then finding out you got the death penalty for it. In this example it is clearly for the organs, but other examples can be more ambiguous and I don't think it is a line society wants to cross and I don't think it is a line we want to cross.

Ultimately jails are "wasteful" in that you can't channel it into anything more productive without turning people into slaves...and many of the suggestions are great, but in practice will be thoroughly abused.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I think the argument that it's acceptable to kill a person by say, frying them in an electric chair but aside from that "OMG their body is their sovereign property" is a little weak. So is your point, Techs

it's not acceptable to exectue prisoners in the first place, and most of the civilized world has moved in this direction. The USA is apparently an exception and seems to be executing people at an ever increasing rate.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
The question is, who owns the condemned. If the state owns the person then it has every right to harvest their organs. I was wondering if this was covered under the 13th amendment.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

After a person is executed it's generally thought that they have repaid their debt to society and are released to their families. So in a sense they are free men, only they're dead free men. So the state doesn't own them.

A more philosophical argument could be made that we are creating incentive for people to be executed. A jury torn between guilty and innocent could feel that by executing the convict they would be saving several innocent people. And more good would come out of their death even if they were innocent. The type of moral dilemma a juror shouldn't face.

Lastly only 60 people were executed in the US in 2005. And not all of their organs would be salvagable. So we'd have this moral and legal controversy whose benefits would be outweighed by it's costs.

Interesting points

 

[Steeplerot]

Just like that Adverts song I <3,

Gary Gilmore's Eyes (1977)

I'm lying in a hospital
I'm pinned against against the bed
A stethoscope upon my heart
A hand against my head

They're peeling off the bandages
I'm wincing in the light
The nurses look anxious
I'm just quivering with fright

I'm looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes
Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes


the doctors are avoiding me
My vision is confused
I listen to my earphones
And I catch the evening news

A murderer's been killed and he
Donates his sight to science
I'm booked into a private ward
And I realise that I must be

Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes
Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes

Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes
Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes

I smash the light in anger
I push my bed against the door
I close my lids across the eyes
I wish to see no more

The iris receives messages
And send them to my brain
No guarantee the stimuli
Must be perceived the same

Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes (Gary don't need his eyes to see)
Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes (Gary and his eyes have parted company)
Looking through Gary Gilmore's eyes

-The Adverts



Gary Mark Gilmore (December 4, 1940 ? January 17, 1977) was an American career criminal who gained international notoriety as the first person legally executed in the United States after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976

In 1977, The Adverts had a top 20 hit in the UK with the song "Gary Gilmore's Eyes". The lyrics describe an eye donor recipient realizing his new eyes came from a executed murderer.

 

[smack Down]

The biggest problem is its hard to kill people painlessly with out killing the organs. The drug they inject are many times the lethal dosage and the chair basicly cooks the whole body.

 

[Future Shock]

Fraktal,
You need to read up on your old Larry Niven "Man in Space" science fiction series. He prophesized an Earth that had done just that, and years later characters in his books were commenting (my paraphrasing):

"After they started harvesting the organs of criminals, the demand was much larger than the supply. So they made many too many things a capital crime...reckless homicide, income tax evasion. Soon it became having too many parking tickets..."

And, you know, I find that way too believable.

Let's not start down that path.

Future Shock

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: aidanjm
on what moral or legal grounds can you simply decide to appropriate those organs? the body parts "belong" to the person being executed. After the execution, the relatives get to decide what happens to the body.

using prisoners as ambulatory body parts factories is obscene. you are treating human beings like a raw commodity such as beef or chicken drumsticks.

No I'm not. Chicken or drumsticks are eaten

Yes you are.

We trade, raise and slaughter cows and chickens to provide us with food. They are a commodity to be sold and purchased and are a raw ingredient for our survival. Now you are suggesting we use harvest organs and other substances from human beings, and use those harvested products to improve our lives or enhance our chances of survival.

 

[aidanjm]

In the USA at least, you would have a large number of African American citizens being killed and having their organs harvested and transplanted into Caucasian people. I wonder how that would go down, from a social and political perspective.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I think the argument that it's acceptable to kill a person by say, frying them in an electric chair but aside from that "OMG their body is their sovereign property" is a little weak. So is your point, Techs

So then we should take everyone's organs when they die, regardless of their wishes?