Against the Principle of Criminal Justice

The opposition side today fully recognize the need for medical technology in modern world, and acknowledge the importance of vaccine research to encounter possible outbreak of pandemic disease. We share the compassion and sympathy to mankind for the burden of survival suffering they have been and will be carried on. However, what we disgree, is the way government approach to the problem. Does the govenment have the right to target prisoners as mere objects of medical experiment? And particularly, does the government has the right to do so without any consent of the prisoners? Is it for or against the rule and nature of justice modern society build upon? The oppostion side firmly says no. To aim the experiment on prisoners, and especially without any consent involved, is fundementally unjustified to the principle of justice, human rights and the role of a government. This isn't a debate about medicine and vaccaine, but about justice and rights. 1) Against the prinicple of Rehabilitation Basically, the proposition side today treat the prisoners as a group of lifeless hoog and thous who does not deserved any consideration as a human being. They deny any of their rights and believes that they deserved nothing but to die and be treated like millions of dogs, rabbits, rats, monkeys died from medical experiments each year in the United States. In their case, there's no distinction between prisoners and a mere lifeless object. We think such mentality and principle behind it, if there's any, is fundementally unfounded and unconstitutional. We understand that these prisoners have committed vicious crime and should be given severe punishment (in the case of captical punishment which they already been given) and we also understand that they should be condemned morally because they violated the social contract and against the norms of citizenship, But first of all, capital punishment is still a controversial issue in terms for the degree of justice it could serve, and even if it's justifiable as the case set in the United States, it does not give right to the government to punish the prisoners by additional means for medical uses. In other words, regardless of how much the prisoners should condemned morally, there's no legal basis that the government could further punish the prisoners at will as convenient tools to suit for any purpose the government sees fit. It's crucial for the proposition side to answer the question that where is this legislative mendate come from, when prisoners already sentenced to death, to further punish them as objects of nonconsensual medical experiement? Where do justice draw the line between appropriate punishment and abusive retributive revenge? The proposition is extreme vague on this issue and makes the plan arbitrary without any legal basis, nor the justification of it. We as the opposition side believes that this twisted notion of justice proposed by the propostion would be a shame of modern society. Justice should served for its rehabilitation purpose, to provide prisoners, even deprived the right to life, a chance to remorse what they have done and feel truely regretful. Treating them as silent tools for experiment wouldn't serve for this purpose. On the contrary, it will very likely to increase the antagonism between criminals and the society--because now that they are deprived everything, including right to life and right of informed consent. Deprived the right to life does not means that they are automatically deprived their right to treat their body. Now the government is not only taking their life away, but also infringe greatly their personal autonomy to free use any part of their body. This is beyond the legal punishment they deserve, but become bladent discrimination they do not necessarily derserve. A prisoner would less likely to remorse for what they did to break the rule of society and because more antagonize with the society because now they are treated unfairly in the "violence begets violence" circle. Justice could not achieve its purpose by this way. The harm of violation of this principle is not only directly linked to prisoners as individuals, that they are not given their lawful protection or being maltreated, but also linked to the whole society--that this will turn the society into a ZERO torlerance society with no room of restoritive justice. Why? Because the policy is sending a strong message that it's not only legal but also moral to infringe prisoner's right, that it's ok and right to treat them as guinea pigs for medical experiements, that they don't deserve a basic right at all once they become criminal. The impact will not only impact the health of the death-row prisoners, but also, to a broad extent, to other prisoners who will be discriminated by society because their nature of being criminals. Such a discriminative mentality will further marginalize the criminals and prevent the restoritave process for both criminals and society. 2) Against the principle of Proportionality for Retributive Justice The principle of proportionality requires the punishment to fit the crime. For the prisoners who already have sentenced with death penalty, they are already being punished severely because of the crime they committed--they already being deprived of their right of life--a highest value of human right. Nothing should add additional to this sentencing because nothing could be more severe than taking away those prisoner's fundemental right to live. To treat them as objects of experiment and further more, without any respect of their own will or opinion, it's bladent discrimination and arbitrary against the rule of justice.