Should drugs be tested on criminals?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SuperTD
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:10 pm UTC
Location: Cardiff

Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby SuperTD » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

In biology, my teacher said as an offhand comment that he thought new drugs should be tested on criminals. I happen to agree with this, because then they will actually be doing something useful, rather than just staying in prison, but I was wondering what other people thought. Do you think that we should test new and possibly dangerous drugs on people who have given nothing to society, or should we only test them on willing volunteers?
nightlina wrote:Damn.. if there was a cannon ball thrown for every time someone was wrong on the internet.. well... I don't think we'd have enough cannon balls!

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5175
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Felstaff » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:51 pm UTC

No.

It's a breach of human rights, for one thing, and also you infer that a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. I'm a criminal for littering earlier. Also; adultery. To say that criminals 'have given nothing to society' is typifying your average criminal a ridiculous amount. Doctors go to gaol for malpractice. As far as I'm aware, aside from said malpractice, they would have done a lot for society. You really need to rethink your image of who a criminal actually is away from lugs in striped pyjamas cracking rocks in a chain gang.

If they had a sign-up sheet in prisons that allowed inmates to volunteer (key word: volunteer) for such trials, by offering them incentives and such, then perhaps.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:59 pm UTC

Also, there are all ready programs in existence meant to facilitate criminals 'giving back' something to society. Also, you increase the burden on tax-payers when these criminals end up with crippling medical problems as a result of the tests. Also, you further dehumanize a segment of the population. Also (most importantly--surprisingly, a detail Felstaff completely missed), there's always the chance that the drugs could give the criminals powers and we'd be faced with a whole army of disenfranchised super-villains with ridiculous prison-based names ("I am... JAIL-OR!").

Consensual testing would be another thing, of course. As long as the criminals were clearly in a position to understand the potential consequences of the testing. Also, as long as the drugs had been rigorously examined to provide evidence against the possibility of granting super-powers.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

1. It is not justified to generalize that criminals "have given nothing to society." If I cure cancer by performing illegal tests on unwilling subjects, am I not still a criminal?

2. The implied necessity of judging whether a criminal has contributed to society is unavoidably problematic; such judgments will be corrupted by various biases — individual and systemic — in the valuation of groups that a criminal has served. EDIT: As Felstaff inadvertently points out above, the stereotype of criminals as dumb thugs is complicit with a prejudice toward treating upper-class criminals as deserving special treatment over working-class criminals, who are viewed as violent and dangerous. One example of this prejudice can be seen here.

3. This proposal, like the death penalty, severely magnifies inequities already present in the justice system. People who are currently targeted more for prosecution would be further oppressed by the introduction more harmful prison conditions.

4. Commission of a crime does not entail forfeiture of all human rights. This principle is affirmed by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and similar understandings elsewhere.

5. Prison conditions are undesirable for the rigor of a controlled study. Prisoners may be more likely to be using other drugs, and will be unwilling to reveal drug history in an environment where drug use is strictly prohibited. This is especially true of prisoners who are incarcerated for drug use (possession of marijuana is the fourth most common reason for arrest in the United States¹).

6. The use of potentially-harmful drugs directly conflicts with the goal of rehabilitating criminals so that they can resume their (ahem) contributions to society.

¹ Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991.

EDIT: I vehemently disagree with Felstaff and The Great Hippo with regards to "voluntary" medical tests within a prison. Such opportunities are inherently coercive when presented through such an imbalanced power structure as exists within a prison, and become only worse when rights denied to prisoners are offered back as incentives by the same people who have the power to revoke those rights.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Number Eight
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:35 pm UTC
Location: Europe

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Number Eight » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:53 pm UTC

ouch. This one could easily become be the fastest occurrence of Godwin's law ever. Pretty hard to beat the first post in a thread. ~CM
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:EDIT: I vehemently disagree with Felstaff and The Great Hippo with regards to "voluntary" medical tests within a prison. Such opportunities are inherently coercive when presented through such an imbalanced power structure as exists within a prison, and become only worse when rights denied to prisoners are offered back as incentives by the same people who have the power to revoke those rights.

This. "I'll grant you privileges that could make your life here more bearable, but, naturally, you're not forced to do this."
Belial wrote:So if we switch to a soccer based economy, everything will be cool forever

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:02 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:EDIT: I vehemently disagree with Felstaff and The Great Hippo with regards to "voluntary" medical tests within a prison. Such opportunities are inherently coercive when presented through such an imbalanced power structure as exists within a prison, and become only worse when rights denied to prisoners are offered back as incentives by the same people who have the power to revoke those rights.


I wouldn't create incentives for it--for anyone (including the administrators running the prison--no quotas, no benefits for meeting them). I was just thinking it'd be fine for researchers to come to a prison and say "hey, anyone want to help out with this medical study we're doing? It's easier than working in the laundry room, but here are some risks associated with it".

I'm assuming that the same rules governing medical drug tests on volunteers outside of prisons would still apply inside them. We're not talking about drug tests that would be illegal outside of prisons, right? The advantage is that prison offers an environment with more controls, so it might be more useful for data collecting.

You brought up an excellent point with the drug-interaction problem, though, and for that reason I'd probably say it might not be worth it anyway.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Number Eight wrote:ouch. This one could easily become be the fastest occurrence of Godwin's law ever.


I didn't bring up Mengele because...

All right; I was going to say something like "because we don't deliberately seek to arrest innocent minorities," "because prison isn't used as a tool for genocide," or "because we do not perceive our prisoners to be subhuman," but each time I realized these things do happen; they only happen on a smaller scale and to a lesser degree, perpetrated by people who are probably less aware of the prejudices that influence their decisions. Certainly minorities are unfairly targeted by police and prosecutors, and unfairly tried by judge and jury. Certainly these prejudices, coupled with the power to separate such victims from natural society, have helped to cripple minority groups, and perhaps to cripple them so greatly that some of their cultures may not survive. And most certainly there is a sentiment, expressed in this very proposal, that prisoners — who are of course not assessed fairly anyway, being disproportionally of sociological minorities — do not have all of the human qualities that entitle them to fair treatment. Only matters of degree separate the two parallels.

But since this idea is so flawed, and can be discredited so thoroughly without even the slightest chance of any hyperbole, I will suffice it to say that involuntary experimentation has a very bad reputation, and for very good reasons.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Woofsie
Posts: 705
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:11 pm UTC
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Woofsie » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:37 pm UTC

I'd personally much prefer it if drugs were tested on humans instead of animals, but only on volunteers. If you offer a nice wage for taking part, I reckon you would get a whole lot of people interested.

That said.. I'm not sure about testing on prisoners. Apart from the difficulty in doing actual research in a prison, there is always the possibility of prisoners being pressured into it. Add to that the fact that criminals are (in general) less likely to understand/care about the dangers and you've got a serious human rights issue on your hands.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:02 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:EDIT: I vehemently disagree with Felstaff and The Great Hippo with regards to "voluntary" medical tests within a prison. Such opportunities are inherently coercive when presented through such an imbalanced power structure as exists within a prison, and become only worse when rights denied to prisoners are offered back as incentives by the same people who have the power to revoke those rights.


I wouldn't create incentives for it--for anyone (including the administrators running the prison--no quotas, no benefits for meeting them). I was just thinking it'd be fine for researchers to come to a prison and say "hey, anyone want to help out with this medical study we're doing? It's easier than working in the laundry room, but here are some risks associated with it".

I'm assuming that the same rules governing medical drug tests on volunteers outside of prisons would still apply inside them. We're not talking about drug tests that would be illegal outside of prisons, right? The advantage is that prison offers an environment with more controls, so it might be more useful for data collecting.

You brought up an excellent point with the drug-interaction problem, though, and for that reason I'd probably say it might not be worth it anyway.


Not having to do laundry is an incentive anyway. I don't see why a person would want to submit to a medical test without any incentive at all, and I don't trust any sort of incentive to not abuse the power structure of the prison. I am also concerned that administrators inclined to be abusive would push prisoners into such a program anyway; their enjoyment of cruelty would be an incentive in itself.

Even if everyone is fully satisfied regarding consent, the distinction of being involved in a medical experiment unsettles the relationships between prisoners and wardens, and among prisoners themselves. Though I regret to argue hypothetically, there's a potential for stigmatization that could lead to abuse in either relationship. Informed consent can't be given if the test subjects aren't informed about this possibility; we can't adequately inform them if we don't know how this scenario might play out, and — though I stand ready to be corrected by any sociologists here — we won't have much to go on for predicting the social effects of a medical testing program in prisons without implementing a medical testing program in a prison.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby scwizard » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

I don't see how anything is wrong with the current system of paying willing test subjects...
Just because a criminal's right to move freely is taken away from them doesn't mean that we should take away their right to choose what goes into their bodies as well.
~= scwizard =~

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:43 pm UTC

It's not about their right to decide whether they take drugs (I am all for that). It's about our responsibility to not influence those decisions by abusing our power. A prisoner is at a significant power disadvantage to prison wardens and scientists, so there is a huge potential for abuse when something like a medical experiment is proposed.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
gmoney1
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:23 pm UTC
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby gmoney1 » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:33 pm UTC

I do not agree with this. Criminals don't give up everything when they go to jail. I could see this with those on death row maybe, but not those just in prison. That seems unfair. What if someone is only in for a month or something and they are forced to take an experimental drug and die?

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby duckshirt » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:51 am UTC

I disagree as well; I think it's inhumane. Unless the drug has already been proven that it won't have any harmful affects, and they're just testing it for other reasons, then maybe they could do it on a voluntary basis. But jail is bad enough. What if a guy was serving a 6-month sentence, and then a drug he tested permanently damaged him?
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby clintonius » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:55 am UTC

Comment quality in this thread is quickly dipping below SB standards. Refrain from offering unsupported opinions and restating previous sentiments.

~CM
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

ablasdel
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:21 am UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby ablasdel » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:27 am UTC

I've been seeing a disturbing descending trend in peoples opinion of prisoners since 9-11.

Granted criminals are incarcerated to pay a debt based on their crimes and thus forfeit some of their freedoms,
but they are still citizens and human beings.

So wouldn't what you are suggesting be just as unlawful as forcing drug testing on a non-incarcerated citizen?

May I ask what law or statute makes you think we can treat criminals this way?
Or are you suggesting we pass laws to give them second class citizen status in some way?

AVbd
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 1:37 am UTC
Location: The United States of Australia (USA)

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby AVbd » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:30 am UTC

In an ideal system, all prisoners would be criminals. But is that true of any current system? What about those incarcerated for possessing and taking illegal drugs, who would be being offered more drugs simply by being in prison? That seems to defeat the point.

Prisoners are sentenced to a particular, finite amount of jail time, and, either you'd be giving them extra sentencing simply as an attempt to further scientific study, or you'd have to offer them reduced jail time for taking drugs. While I'm not adding too much to the discussion, I just wanted to point out that we can't simply dump extra punishments on prisoners simply because they are prisoners; they are already given a particular sentence, and that's the sentence they should do.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheStranger » Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:45 pm UTC

Even if everyone in prison deserved to be there (was a criminal) then drug testing on prisoners would still not be ethical.

You are performing possibly hazardous experiments on an unwilling population (can a prisoner consent to such testing?) which is quite unethical regardless of how that population acts.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

MarshyMarsh
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:43 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby MarshyMarsh » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:13 pm UTC

I strongly disagree with this proposition, to test drugs in a society in which you are in extreme proximity to others would be a very poor decision to make. Side effects such as depression, agression ...etc... (feeling related) are usually discoevered in the clinical stages of drug testing. It is hard to predict wether a drug will make someone angry or depressed.

It would also cost the tax payer to test the drogues, currently private companies offer cash to people willing to join a public trial. If it was carried out in prison, medical personel would have to be conscripted into the prisons to keep everything running, this would put them at risk, thus you would need more guards.

Also how would you monitor a prisoner who is on a drug trial, you would have to organize times for him/her to be monitered/tests to be taken, you would have to build testing facilities. Also given that you are dealing with criminals, some of thes drugs may be smuggled, slipped into other peoples foods, or maybe even out of prison unless extremly close eye and supervision is kept.

Finally if you start testing drugs on prisoners, what is to stop us going further, lets say taking organs they do not need, removing stem cells from the spine ...etc... etc... The current system of PAYING volunteers is the only just way to operate the system.

User avatar
Bluggo
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:12 pm UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Bluggo » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:31 pm UTC

More in general, I do not think that justice should be based on the "They are criminals, so they have it coming" mindset.

It is regrettable fact of life that it is sometimes necessary to restrict the freedom of some people in order to protect others from their behaviour: even then, the focus should be on rehabilitating them whenever possible.

People who are in jail are still humans, and humans are sacred.
Testing drugs on them would be no less horrifying than testing drugs on <insert disliked minority here>.
Mary Ellen Rudin wrote:Let X be a set. Call it Y.

User avatar
SuperTD
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:10 pm UTC
Location: Cardiff

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby SuperTD » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:05 pm UTC

In my first post I was meaning criminals that had committed serious offenses, like murder and rape. Of course you don't force someone to take drugs if they have just stolen a car or some other minor act. However, should a murderer have any human rights at all? Surely whoever he murdered had the right to live? If you break someone else's human rights, why should you have any?
I agree with the idea of incentives, that if you took part then you should get some kind of reward. I seem to have offended some people with the mere suggestion of it; if so I apologize.

No need to apologize -- just be aware that, in SB, anything you present can and will be challenged.

~CM
nightlina wrote:Damn.. if there was a cannon ball thrown for every time someone was wrong on the internet.. well... I don't think we'd have enough cannon balls!

MarshyMarsh
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:43 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby MarshyMarsh » Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:14 pm UTC

What about a man who killed another man to save his children? Should he have his human rights taken away from him?

Compasion should be shown for all human beings, no matter what they have done. An evil act does not negate the first evil that had been done. Prison is a brutal place, but an innocent man in prison is still allowed to fight his case, he is still allowed the right to live, he is still allowed to preserve some dignity and human rights. Prisoners are only criminal in the eyes of the jury and/or judge. Ultimately it comes down to how much evidence their is and how good your lawyer is, no man has the right, the knowledge or power (or never should he have), to be sure who is 'good' or 'bad'. Therefore those suspected of being bad, should be punished, but re-habilitated, educated and treated as human.

I know the bible is not an emperically sound source, I myself do not believe in the word of the bible, nor am I a Christian, but:

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:2-11

Treating prisoners like test rats, or a giant organic computer, itself would be a sinful act. I would agree however that perhaps prisoners (in a distant future society) could offer themselves for testing, or other social benneficial surfaces as a way of redemption of their crime.

User avatar
TheStranger
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:39 pm UTC
Location: The Void which Binds

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby TheStranger » Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:32 pm UTC

SuperTD wrote:In my first post I was meaning criminals that had committed serious offenses, like murder and rape. Of course you don't force someone to take drugs if they have just stolen a car or some other minor act. However, should a murderer have any human rights at all? Surely whoever he murdered had the right to live? If you break someone else's human rights, why should you have any?


By that logic we can go ahead and torture anyone convicted of murder, keep them in hellish conditions, then execute them in a number of creative and violent ways.

Can you say that our justice system is perfect? That everyone convicted is actually guilty?

A conviction does not remove an individuals rights... even though it can lead to restrictions.
"To bow before the pressure of the ignorant is weakness."
Azalin Rex, Wizard-King of Darkon

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby ManaUser » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:22 am UTC

Here's another angle. "Giving back to society" sounds nice and all, but basically it's slavery. Granted it's slavery as a hopefully justified punishment, not just because, but it's still something we should be wary of. In my opinion, there are too many people in prison already. If prisoners we're "giving back", wouldn't that create an inventive to put more people in prison and keep them there longer? That's the opposite of what I would like to see. I think prison should be used sparingly and focused as much as possible on rehabilitation.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Malice » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:59 am UTC

ManaUser wrote:Here's another angle. "Giving back to society" sounds nice and all, but basically it's slavery. Granted it's slavery as a hopefully justified punishment, not just because, but it's still something we should be wary of.


Prisons already force prisoners to perform jobs. Drug testing would simply be a different one.
Image

Esquilax
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:56 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Esquilax » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:51 am UTC

I also agree that running drug tests on incarcerated criminals would be rather unethical, for many of the same reasons stated above. That said, what about this approach:
Upon sentencing, convicted criminals can be given the option to take drugs tests in exchange for reduced sentences, or in lieu of sentences entirely, in much the same way that community service hours are sometimes given as sentences currently. After all, couldn't it sort of be considered giving back to the community to help out on drug tests?
I believe this system is superior to the one suggested by the op because it makes it entirely voluntary and also removes the pressure of actually being in prison when you are forced to make the critical decision. I'd like to stress that drug testing should never be offered as the only possible sentence, and the convict should be fully informed by the courts about what the drug testing facility is like. That said, I could still see problems with this system, but I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Malice » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:52 am UTC

What rationale do you have for allowing criminals to choose their punishments? Doesn't that sort-of defeat the entire purpose of the justice system?
Image

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby SummerGlauFan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Esquilax wrote:I also agree that running drug tests on incarcerated criminals would be rather unethical, for many of the same reasons stated above. That said, what about this approach:
Upon sentencing, convicted criminals can be given the option to take drugs tests in exchange for reduced sentences, or in lieu of sentences entirely, in much the same way that community service hours are sometimes given as sentences currently. After all, couldn't it sort of be considered giving back to the community to help out on drug tests?
I believe this system is superior to the one suggested by the op because it makes it entirely voluntary and also removes the pressure of actually being in prison when you are forced to make the critical decision. I'd like to stress that drug testing should never be offered as the only possible sentence, and the convict should be fully informed by the courts about what the drug testing facility is like. That said, I could still see problems with this system, but I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions.


Hmm. That's a fairly unique take on the question. However, Where do you draw the line? Do you want violent offenders offered this, and thus risking having them out in the public while they undergo these tests? If not, where would you house them?

Or do you want minor offenders, like people convicted of drug possession or petty theft? While the second approach could go a long way to reducing prison crowding, and give us useful scientific information to boot, is it justifiable offering a potentially fatal/handicapping punishment (in terms of potential for the drug to have a lethel/permanently bad nonlethal side effect) for such a minor crime?

Having criminals work to pay back society is one thing, but why not just put them to work on public works projects (much like oldschool chain gangs) rather than this. Having a bunch of nonviolent offenders working on building a road/planting trees/doing farmwork could contribute alot to society, too.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby ManaUser » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:51 am UTC

Malice wrote:
ManaUser wrote:Here's another angle. "Giving back to society" sounds nice and all, but basically it's slavery. Granted it's slavery as a hopefully justified punishment, not just because, but it's still something we should be wary of.

Prisons already force prisoners to perform jobs. Drug testing would simply be a different one.

You're right of course, my point was not that we don't do this, but that increasing the emphases on this aspect of prison is not unambiguously a good thing.

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby The Mad Scientist » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:07 am UTC

SuperTD wrote:However, should a murderer have any human rights at all?


I am afraid that it is not a matter of "should":

Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...


(Emphasis added.)

www.dictionary.com wrote:Inalienable (adj): ...not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated...


Of course, you may not be American, but the argument remains unchanged. Unfortunately, the United States government has totally ignored this argument from day one--but that's another matter.

(To those who will nitpick and point out that, technically, Jefferson's was an assertion, not an argument: it is an assertion, true, but it can easily be shown that the refusal to accept it as axiomatic quickly leads to horrors and absurdities.)

Also: forced labor is slavery, regardless of whether or not the slave has committed a crime in the past.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Malice » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:40 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:
SuperTD wrote:However, should a murderer have any human rights at all?


I am afraid that it is not a matter of "should":

Thomas Jefferson wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...


(Emphasis added.)


Note that we already "alienate" a convict's right to liberty, and in special cases, his right to life. In reality there are no unqualified rights; just ones we are more careful about qualifying than others.

(Oh, and don't tell me "the US does that but it shouldn't". I doubt Jefferson believed there shouldn't be a prison system.)

Also: forced labor is slavery, regardless of whether or not the slave has committed a crime in the past.

Then we already enslave our prisoners.
Image

The Mad Scientist
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:09 am UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby The Mad Scientist » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:00 am UTC

Malice wrote:Note that we already "alienate" a convict's right to liberty, and in special cases, his right to life. In reality there are no unqualified rights; just ones we are more careful about qualifying than others.

(Oh, and don't tell me "the US does that but it shouldn't". I doubt Jefferson believed there shouldn't be a prison system.)


Prison is a necessary evil. Pumping unwilling people full of drugs is an entirely unnecessary evil.

Malice wrote:Then we already enslave our prisoners.


What's your point?

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Malice » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:08 am UTC

The Mad Scientist wrote:Prison is a necessary evil. Pumping unwilling people full of drugs is an entirely unnecessary evil.


Are you saying there's no benefit to drug testing?

Malice wrote:Then we already enslave our prisoners.


What's your point?


That most people don't feel strongly opposed to prison inmates doing laundry or making license plates. Were you one of those people, you'd right now be quivering in shock at the power of my argument. Apparently you are not one of those people.
Image

User avatar
Hackfleischkannibale
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:51 pm UTC
Location: not the moon... yet.

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Hackfleischkannibale » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:46 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Are you saying there's no benefit to drug testing?

There is, but I would guess you understand the difference between a beneficial and a necessary evil. You cannot justify evil by benefit - because that's the most important reason to evil (as in violence and criminality) anyway.
Malice wrote:That most people don't feel strongly opposed to prison inmates doing laundry or making license plates. Were you one of those people, you'd right now be quivering in shock at the power of my argument. Apparently you are not one of those people.

You don't harm people by letting them do this work. You wan people to rehabilitate, right? Drug testing harms people. That's what usual testers get their money for. But when you harm someone in prison, they are less able to rehabilitate. They have worse chances at getting jobs, and if they are harmed mentally, they will be less able to build up social safety networks (such funny things as friends and good neighbors and the like). Soooo... they are more likely to go back into prison again. That's great if you want to have drug testing slaves, but not actually the point of sending people to jail.
If this sentence makes no sense to you, why don't you just change a pig?

EstLladon
Beat you to the park. From RUSSIA.
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:23 am UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby EstLladon » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:23 pm UTC

Well maybe not drug testing, but for example something good can come from blood drives in prison. If you pay your inmates with reducing their jailtime for like a week for a clean blood sample they will probably be willing to give blood. This can actually save lives. And the prisoners will be less likely to take drugs (don't they smuggle drugs into prisons? because I do not really know). Giving blood does not harm you significantly.
From Russia with math.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby SummerGlauFan » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:30 pm UTC

EstLladon wrote:Well maybe not drug testing, but for example something good can come from blood drives in prison. If you pay your inmates with reducing their jailtime for like a week for a clean blood sample they will probably be willing to give blood. This can actually save lives. And the prisoners will be less likely to take drugs (don't they smuggle drugs into prisons? because I do not really know). Giving blood does not harm you significantly.

Clean blood sample? In prison?
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

EstLladon
Beat you to the park. From RUSSIA.
Posts: 483
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:23 am UTC

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby EstLladon » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Clean blood sample? In prison?
It is possible if both parties are interested in that.
From Russia with math.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby Azrael » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:43 pm UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
EstLladon wrote:Well maybe not drug testing, but for example something good can come from blood drives in prison. If you pay your inmates with reducing their jailtime for like a week for a clean blood sample they will probably be willing to give blood. This can actually save lives. And the prisoners will be less likely to take drugs (don't they smuggle drugs into prisons? because I do not really know). Giving blood does not harm you significantly.

Clean blood sample? In prison?

... Not everyone in prison uses or abuses drugs.

Seriously, if the rampantly ridiculous stereotypes continue, I'll just lock the thread.

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby scwizard » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

Malice, I believe the argument is that one's right to soverignity over their own body is a more fundemental right than the right to liberty (which imprisonment and slavery clearly violate).
~= scwizard =~

MarshyMarsh
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:43 pm UTC
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby MarshyMarsh » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:59 pm UTC

If you go by the argument of prisoners already being 'like slaves' and drug testing is no different to making liscence plates. You could surely argue that many prisoners may/may not need some or all of their limbs, especilly if they are kept in isolation. Surely letting the military test weapons on parts of these prisons would benefit society? Allowing us to see the full effects of a dangerous weapon. Why not practice new death drugs on those on death row? They are going to die anyway. The argument of prisoners having no rights, or being slaves brings much more radical aspects to the arguments.

As far as drug testing and blood donorship, ir should be offered to prisoners similar in a way it is offered to the public, but instead of cash they are offered another incentive.

scwizard
Posts: 519
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:29 pm UTC
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Should drugs be tested on criminals?

Postby scwizard » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:02 pm UTC

MarshyMarsh wrote:but instead of cash they are offered another incentive.

What's wrong with cash?

If you're implying that the "other incentive" should be a reduced sentense then I don't like the sound of it. I don't want a criminal who has been convicted of assult to be under the effects of experimental psycatric medicine when he is released.
~= scwizard =~


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests