Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

My opponent quotes my contention as, 1:"Rights carry obligations. By committing such heinous offences the criminal should forfeit all rights." And replies, "It is difficult to respond appropriately to this point without having a clear idea of what "rights" my opponent refers to. It seems that he accepts that some rights exists and his earlier use of the phrase "human rights" suggests that he may be referring to the rights set out in the UDHR." I am referring to the generic concept of rights and the fact that they are restricted as a punishment. The basic right to freedom is negated when someone is assigned a custodial sentence. The right to life is negated in certain countries and states by the death penalty. There exists already a common consensus that rights carry obligations and may be withdrawn. "2: "Crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism are such terrible crimes that the criminal is unlikely ever to be 'rehabilitated' and should never be freed to endanger society...Many offenders, even those convicted of the most horrific crimes have been successfully rehabilitated." However the contention is that rehabilitation is unlikely, your links suggest that rehabilitation occurs in specific cases and that there exist systems of rehabilitation they do not appear to comment on the likelihood of rehabilitation. Many offenders may have been rehabilitated, what is relevant is how many have been compared to how many have not. "Consider the hypothetical example of a woman who has been raped. The criminal justice system lets her down, the case is thrown out of court and her attacker walks free. She then plots and murders him. Is it fair to execute this woman? Is there not a good chance that she can be rehabilitated?" Though this hypothetical situation is an interesting and thought provoking one, it is not a specific counter-argument against my proposition. It could equally be used to challenge the contention that rapists should not be imprisoned. In such an event the Jury may even ignore the law, and instead return a non-guilty vote purely out of sympathy for the woman or some sense of 'natural justice'. Her defence lawyers would have a reasonable chance of creating the impression that her mental state renders her unfit for trial or unsuitable for the charge of murder. Depending upon the exact circumstances she may even be able to plead self-defence. Also the option of the death penalty does not mean that all crimes of a certain category would warrant the death penalty. I am arguing for the death penalty in a specific form, no part of my argument suggests a negation of normal judicial discretion. "3: "Permanent incarceration is a drain on the resources of the State and it is amoral to expect the taxpayer to support such people." It is a well documented fact that the death penalty is drastically more expensive than the alternative option of life imprisonment." No it is not, it is well documented fact that the US system of placing someone on death row for many years whilst staging numerous appeals, retrials and legal arguments is more expensive. It is obvious that simply hanging someone, wheeling them into an operating theatre, or handing them over as experimental material are cheaper alternatives than incarcerating someone in solitary confinement for decades. Not every country that employs the death penalty does so with such expensive inefficiency. "Escape is extremely rare. Much,much rarer than wrongful conviction. Escape from maximum security prison is almost unheard of. Almost all escapes occur during work release or outdoor programmes and almost all escapees are recaptured straight away. http://www.dc.state.fl.us...... Prison guards are adequately trained, equipped, resourced, paid and mean to defend themselves and other staff." True but the risk does exist and it has occurred. It is clearly superior to negate this admittedly low risk and replace it with zero risk. Prison guards are trained to deal with this issue, and can expect this problem. But when these problems can be reduced why not reduce them? "4: "Simple execution fails to give anything back to society." Agreed. Complicated execution is not much better however." Complicated execution is an assumption and not at issue here. "Linking back to the last point, life in prison with forced or voluntary labour can also be very productive and make substantial contributions to society." Agreed, so my opponent supports forced labour in medical research which is part of what I am arguing for? I argued, "people are more concerned with the well being of an average rabbit than they are of a rapist." My opponent replies, "I am thoroughly unconvinced by this assertion. My opponent will need to back this up." Via this index I can see several charities for animals, not a single charity for rapists. http://www.charitygiftcertificates.org... I stated, 6: "Medical testing on animals is of limited scientific value." My opponent points out, "Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way" http://en.wikipedia.org...... I accept this, but it does negate the fact that testing on humans provides superior experimental data. Would the thalidomide incident have occurred if medical companies could use prisoners for test subjects? http://en.wikipedia.org... I argued, 7: "The testing of new drugs or procedures on patients or paid volunteers is unethical, why should normal members of society be used as guinea pigs when we have a surplus of unproductive and worthless criminals?" My opponent counters, "It is with this point that the inconsistency of Pro's human rights argument becomes most exposed. If it is unethical to experiment on a paid volunteer as my opponent claims it is, then this is actually infringing on that individual's liberty. How can voluntary experimentation be unethical but forcing it on the unwilling be perfectly acceptable." A normal member of society has rights, though they may choose to be test subjects and be paid for it this subjects them to risk, I consider this to be amoral in the same way as encouraging poor members of society to sell their 'spare' kidneys. Voluntary experimentation on a normal human being with rights is unethical, forced experimentation on a human being with no rights is not, as they have rejected human rights it is the moral equivalent of testing on an inanimate object. Though I expect my opponent to disagree this argument is simple a continuation of my previous contention that rights carry obligations. "Many criminals, including some murderers are perfectly 'normal' people. As noted in my responses to previous points, criminals can make productive and worthwhile contributions to society. Dehumanising them achieves nothing." Murderers have committed a crime that warrants total disgust, they are not perfectly normal people. They can make productive and worthwhile contributions to society, dehumanising them makes this productivity easier to achieve. This is simply a logical continuation of the very same 'dehumanisation' that society already employs to allow them to be incarcerated or forced into chain gangs. My opponent counter argues, "With the application of the death penalty it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed." This can not be entirely negated, but the courts are fully aware of this issue the risk of which can be lowered with improved rigour with regards forensics and allowing the death penalty only in the most egregious of cases. My opponent argues that the death penalty is hypocritical. "A state that imposes the death penalty is claiming to condemn murder while carrying it out." In some situations is it permissible to take life, in others it is not. There is no hypocrisy here.