h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

that i can understand and if it was jsut a matter of sending people who were guilty to be buried after being killed or providing transplants than u would be right but i suspect it would be of little comfort to the family of the innoocent man if he had been killed and his organs removed for a crime he did not commit

thats why i said it should only be done after all the appeals procces was exhausted, give someone 10 years on death row, for new evidence to be found etc. and get them nice and fit and healthy for the transplants

hmm i can see how that would almost exhaust the innoocents to be killed - although a malacious criminal could well commit suicide - even a watch cant stop it for 10 years.
the problem with that is the appeals process for death (in the us) costs even more then holding a prisnor for life. So this could well be more expensive even with saving lives and im not willing to allow people to die needlessly by reducing the appeals system

>If we acknowledge that many people who are convicted are, in fact, innocent. And we bring back the death penalty - how many executions of innocent people is too many?

One.

For this argument I equate life imprisonment and the death peanalty isequal because if someone spends the life in prison - even when innoocent due to a lack of anny clearing evidence it is not different to the death penalty.

THerefore i cannot allow our justice system to become useless because we daren take the risk that someone might be innoocent therefore my 400 -1 number believe is most accurate

Taff > "thats why i said it should only be done after all the appeals procces was exhausted, give someone 10 years on death row, for new evidence to be found etc. and get them nice and fit and healthy for the transplants"

What an utterly malicious system of injustice.


Incompetence and corruption cannot be excised from any system of law. As such to support a death penalty is clear, irresponsible and casual barbarism before one even gets to more emotive arguments against it.

Any system that condones imprisonment of the innocent is bad.

Incidentally, it's the biggest argument against capital punishment. I cannot begin to conceive the feelings that must go on inside the innocent person's mind at the time of execution.

But those feelings can only be a step further along the same road of the innocent person being put down for any term, even an overnight stay in the nick is too much.

How do you ovecome the improsonment of the innocent? Aah! That really is a big question. After how many thousands of years of civilisation, man hasn't found the answer to that yet.......

To go back to the '10 years on death row' + execution question. Isn't that double punishment? Innocent or guilty, living on death row is a form of mental torture. There has recently been the case of a man on death row for 20 years then executed.
If he had been sentanced to life in prison (LiP), he might have been paroled after 20 years.
LiP/execution sentancing seems pretty arbitrary in the first place. Add access to brillant (and expensive) lawyers and justice seems to be in even more of a shambles.
The first question on this thread mentions one innocent person. An innocent person should never be knowingly sentanced to prison. The law needs what is so very difficult to legislate and provide for, and is presumably why judges and juries are involved in he process: common sense.
Whether an innocent actually is imprisoned probably depends on the luck of the draw and, even more frightening, to police arrest achievement records.

id agree that a double punishment would probably be too sever, although for most on death row id be rather hesitant about feeling bad about severe punishments. Even the chinese normally commute death sentences to life after 5 years in prison

This is in reply to post 20.

As far as I am aware, the UK still has an 'opt-in' system for organ donations, therefore, would the prisoners in question be required to give their consent? Or will that basic right have been swept under the most convenient carpet?

Would that not lead to 'death row' prisoners (who have had all appeals etc denied etc) simply becoming organ factories?

You say "if they had been executed by harvesting the deaths need not have been in vain...". Interesting. So then presume all death rowers are automatically placed on the list of possible donors.

An example.

An old lag has sat on death row for over ten years. He is due for the drop/needle/voltage in approximately 1.5 years.

Meanwhile, a country-wide appeal has been launched to find a kidney donor for a very rare & specific tissue type. As luck would have it, the old lag is an exact match, so he cheerfully (or reluctantly -doesn't matter which really) agrees to go through with the donation. Great.

Both donor & recipient do well, & the old lag goes back to prison.


Imagine 6/12 months later, a similar appeal is launched for someone whom again, the old lag matches exactly.

Would he be forced to donate his remaining kidney, against his will with the prospect of requiring a life-time of dialysis? Would dialysis for the prisoner even enter the equation (largely due to expense & to an extent of how deserving he would be)? My guess is that dialysis would not be approved, thereby condemning him to death. Death in a way that he had not planned for, & was not ready for. At least on death row, they have a date, prior knowledge of when they will die.

A similar scenario of someone requiring a new heart has similar, but more immediately lethal consequenses - would the old lag be forced to give up his heart to potentially save someone deemed by society to be more worthy of life than him?

Yes, they may be on 'death row' for a reason, but surely, in an opt-in system, they still retain the right to give or deny consent for harvesting, no?

If I understand correctly, you feel that using them as donors to give quality of life to others is a good thing, but it's not that simple. It is more than perhaps making the best of a bad situation, it is a maze of ethical dilemmas.

As for the death penalty itself, after having seen a few on documentaries, I would not wish that particular practice to cross the Atlantic.

hmmm very well reasoned argument there
i think that forced organ taking from a prisenor is not only morally wrong, despite their actions it also penalises the family of the victim as it prevents them from burying the body, dismembering the body also gurantees a trip to hell for some religions, even if the victim had been forgiven for his actions.

Ta nosebagbear (good name).

The only consolation I can get from the possibility of enforced donations like that, is that I cannot see the medical community undertaking that as a practice. Hypocratic Oath & all that. They are charged to care for prisoners in the same way they would treat any member of society. So perhaps that makes it all a moot point.

However, I didn't even consider any cultural or religious aspects of this. Could you enlighten me please?

well i know that muslims feel that if the body is dismemberd than they cannot enter heaven. You would think that this would cause a problem with suicide bombers but i think the law applies to damage after death.
The same appplies to judaism with things like autopsies however there it is allowed if it will save another life so i suppose they would allow that, albeit it being iffy.
Do they use doctors for lethal injections?

Thanks

"Do they use doctors for lethal injections?"

I had assumed so, but having found this, their role (if any) appears limited to pronouncing death. From the notes at the bottom of the page, prisons use other professionals to actually do the deed.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/HealthProStatutes.pdf

well given that almost anyone could (disregarding morality) inject a needle to kill someone they arent necessary except for pronouciing death. Despite the messyness of it i think id have to pick firing squad over electrocution or lethal injection - less painful but i do have to be glad i dont live over the pond

No, not almost anyone could inject a needle. It seems to be a proficient, how shall I say, 'lesser' professional eg. paramedic. I hasten to add that the term 'lesser' is not my view, as I fully recognise & admire their work. However, in general, medics will always have a place at the top of the tree as far as the public/laymen are concerned.

As for choice of death, I'm with you on not having a lethal injection, give me a good long drop with the knot expertly placed (as in the old days).

There's some things from the US I think should definitely not be adopted & this is one. Maccy D's though...has remedied many a stinking hangover, & that has to be good.

Larry Niven, in his "Known Space" future history universe deals a fair bit with organ harvesting. Quite interesting.

Try "Tales of Known space" for starters.

FB

steak tends to bequite good in the us though

can anybody help? Ever since reading about organ 'harvesting', I'm been trying to think of the title of a book I read years ago.

it starts like almost a boarding school type thing with strange rules and regulations, all the kids eager to get points and what have you. As teenagers, sexual license (having fun) is encouraged. Then the youngsters are 'ready'. They are in fact clones, intended to be body spare-part 'machines' but, as some people close to them have realised, they are human with feelings. OK, simplified to the extreme but does it ring a bell?

mmmm i know a book where its not clones but children can be picked by their parents/orphanage to be killed an harvested.
Theres also the island where the film at least has a plot about young adults being killed for the same but in that the sex drive has been cut out. So unfortunatly not sorry