For death penalty PROPONENTS a question.

[Silverhair]

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your justice system is completely efficient and that when a person is sentenced to death, they have in fact actually committed the crime in question. Further we shall assume it is a horrible crime.

Do you harvest the organs?

I would be against it for reasons that I will explain later in the thread. But I don't want my reasons to influence the thread at this point.

[Deep13]

1. no

First, there should never be an incentive to kill someone. Further, there should never be a reason to kill someone on the bottom rung of society to make him or her useful to those further up the ladder.

Second, the execution will likely make the organs unusable anyway.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. Lethal injection would most likely render the organs unsalvagable...

But if the organs were viable, the convicted gets two last choices: last meal and organ donation.

[Silverhair]

8. So change the method of execution.

That last meal may have to go too. It is laced with sedatives. The reason for the last meal is the idea that the condemned will eat his favorite foods and so be sedated for the execution, and go quietly.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. Sedatives, within dose range, would not impact organ donation

And I don't see the death penalty as a chop-shop opportunity (cut 'em up for parts) unless the convicted wants to donate.

That POS child-molester/murderer from Idaho, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy...yep, I support the death penalty for each and every one of them; with or without organ donation.

[longship]

3. No death penalty. No qualifications.

I cannot stand for the death penalty even if the perpetrator is *known* to be guilty. There are no conditions, qualifications, or otherwise which would have me change my mind on this. No matter how grievious the crime, the death penalty is an abomination.

[Silverhair]

6. The question was addressed to PROPONENTS.

Obviously opponents of the DP would also oppose organ harvesting.

[tocqueville]

4. An efficient justice system doesn't have death penalty

Death penalty isn't even a deterrent. Basically it's vengeance. A "completely" effeicient justice system reforms even the worse criminal.

so the question is biased anyway

[txaslftist]

5. Only harvest them with his consent.

They belong to him, in fact, they are all he has left.

[Silverhair]

9. Are they his anymore?

He has forfeited his right to life, so that could include everything else too.

[txaslftist]

12. You can take his life. You can't take away his soul.

Does the state own you?
If you can "forfeit your right" to your body, it's not a right. It's a privilege.

[GreenArrow]

7. Even better

Why stop with "harvesting" the organs; use the condemmed while alive as a medical guinea pig. Who knows what we could learn!

:sarcasm:

[Silverhair]

10. That was done in a science fiction novel I once read. NT

[txaslftist]

13. Nothing Science Fiction about it.

Google chinese executions and organ donations.

You will find that the Chinese sell the organs of those they execute on the "grey" market to wealthy Americans in need of a transplant.

It's the real deal, baby.

[Mizmoon]

14. last guy who suggested that was Jack "Dr. Death" Kavorkian

What a monster.

[cynatnite]

15. Personal choice to donate organs. Period. n/t

[Silverhair]

16. Why I am against it.

If that were allowed, at first it would be greeted with protests. Then there would be several people alive because of the policy. TV cameras would be able to focus on them, interview them, etc. Public opinion would swing to supporting it. Then there would be a demand for more executions. Previously lesser crimes would become capital crimes, and convictions would be easier to come by.

And the ones to benefit would be the have-a-lots.

The ones having their organs harvested would be the have-nots.

[Walt Starr]

17. In some cases, Death BY organ donation would seem appropriate. n/t