6 ms·
You could argue that using it as a deterant doesn't work. But what if we did something like Shusterman's Unwind for criminals that have killed others? There are
by helthanatos 10y ago
You could argue that using it as a deterant doesn't work. But what if we did something like Shusterman's Unwind for criminals that have killed others? There are about 120,000 people needing lifesaving organ transplant and only about 12,000 donors (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov)
Lethal injection used to cost about 85$ per person(apparently that cost has seen exponential growth).
Although, taking organs from people forcefully or from a prisoner in general may be considered wrong (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42667886/ns/health-health_care/t/killers-quest-allow-organ-donation-after-execution/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42667886/ns/health-health_care/t/k...).
It can be reasoned that since they unjustly took the life of someone else that they should surrender their body to the state to make up their unfortunate deeds. Simply put: why let good people die when bad people can save them? Clearly there are moral delimas, as well as legal ones, that can be argued either direction.
Possibly the biggest problem would be the people the organs saved having issues with having a murderer's organs save their lives. After all, who would really want a criminal's body parts? Would the only people doing this to and making feel better be vigilantes?
Perhaps it could be looked at from an economical point then: is it more cost effective to set criminals free or to extinguish their life? How many more people would murders hurt if they were let free from prison? Does prison actually reform murderers?
- vidarh 10y agoThis creates a strong incentive to unfairly convict by lowering the perceived damage of wrongly convicting someone as someone else who may potentially be seemd as more likely to be good may be saved.
- helthanatos 10y agoI would argue that it wouldn't do much to conviction because the organs used from the current people would satisfy a lot of the need. Yes, it may increase unfair convictions, but I don't think it would be a strong enough incentive.
- vidarh 10y ago28 people were executed in the US in 2015. Thousands of organs are transplanted every year. The only way death penalty would make a dent would be to dramatically increase it. But it wouldn't need to dramatically increase it to cause a massive percentage-wise increase in innocent people convicted.
- helthanatos 10y agoBut there are over 600 on death row. Each person can give 15-25 useful organs. If they're in prison, it's likely that quite a few organs aren't viable for transplant, but at least it's a start. I think the amount of people saved would far outnumber the wrongful convictions. The justice system would probably have to be revamped in order for this to work, yes, but why do you think so many more innocent would be convicted?
- vidarh 10y agoYou could deplete the entire supply in one year. Then what? The reason there are so many on death row in the US today is that so many states have had issues with actually carrying out the executions - there are not 600 news capital convictions each year, so your supply would replenish at a much slower rate. In other words unless you massively reduce the threshold at which you will convict, it will not provide much of a benefit. And given that we know that innocents get convicted, even a small reduction in the threshold will disproportionally increase the number of innocents convicted. Want to solve the transplant issue? Instead of this, make people opt out istead of opt in to transplants.
- euyyn 10y agoWho was even talking about letting them free? And do you also propose that organ recipients be ranked according to how good they are as a person?
- helthanatos 10y agoI was talking about economics. It is economically a much better idea to not have them in prison. My only qualifier for being a good person is just someone who hasn't killed another person (homicide not manslaughter). I think the organ recipients just receive them in the order they're on the list.
- euyyn 10y agoBut then a murderer can still be in the list and receive an organ before some innocent kid.
- helthanatos 10y agoTrue, but there is a greater chance the kid will survive if there are more organs available.