NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the key arguments that the anti-capital punishment crowd loves to use and which, with only a few exceptions, is nearly undeniably true is that the death penalty benefits no one, that it does not bring back the dead and does not save anyone. But what if that weren't the case? What if instead of hanging or beheading or poisoning someone to death they were instead carved up and stored in organ banks? In the classic Niven short "The Jigsaw Man" the condemned would be rendered unconscious and chilled before being fed into a mechanical surgeon that would vivisect a convict. Blood is drained, skin folded, organs jarred, even the eyes and ears and bones and hair are taken. When all is said and done there isn't even a corpse, just a few parts on table. The idea is that with a little luck the condemned will save more lives than they stole.

What I want to know is have you read the story, what do you think of this practice, and for what crime would this be suitable?

But what if the soul of the killer decides to possess the transplanted organ and decides to take out his revenge on society through the person who receives the organ?! :eek:

But what if the soul of the killer decides to possess the transplanted organ and decides to take out his revenge on society through the person who receives the organ?! :eek:
That's what I'd call a bad hair day.

That's what I'd call a bad hair day.

/thread

*a slice of cheese cake for the Simpson quote*

I don't think I can win my own thread. Besides, this was meant to be a serious discussion about a potential new form of capital punishment which would make it "serious fucking bizness".

I don't think I can win my own thread. Besides, this was meant to be a serious discussion about a potential new form of capital punishment which would make it "serious fucking bizness".

Yea, you haven't been on NSG for long have ya?

http://cache.bordom.net/images/f9cc829ae0b529241778cbc6134fbbcc.jpg

As for your idea, I would actually support it, it def. would help with our organ shortage that we have right now.

Why not just keep them alive and use material from their organs for cloning? That way, you'd have a pretty endless supply of material, which could then be altered as needed and produced via organ printing. Of course, it's a little more technically intensive than the old kill-and-harvest, but it works for everybody and ensures the supply remains constant.

Perhaps give the "donors" special privileges or something like that for cooperation. This way, there's no chance of bad hair days... it's not like we're killing the convict, just using a small amount of their cells for organ production.

At first I was also a supporter of this idea. Thing is that in the story voters eventually started to apply this ultimate mulct to nearly everything. Instead of speeding tickets people would end up on death row with organleggers and rapists. In fact, that is how it ended. All through the story we are reminded that the protagonist doesn't think he deserves to die for his crimes. At the end we learn it was a few speeding tickets, a few red lights, and a DWI case where he was acquitted. This is why I ask what crime would such a punishment be suitable for. I suppose I would also like to know if you think that enough people would use the DP to seek near immortality by making every offense a capital offense as the voters did in the Niven tale.

At first I was also a supporter of this idea. Thing is that in the story voters eventually started to apply this ultimate mulct to nearly everything. Instead of speeding tickets people would end up on death row with organleggers and rapists. In fact, that is how it ended. All through the story we are reminded that the protagonist doesn't think he deserves to die for his crimes. At the end we learn it was a few speeding tickets, a few red lights, and a DWI case where he was acquitted. This is why I ask what crime would such a punishment be suitable for.

None, really. I think the only suitable use would be to keep prisoners alive and to use small, nonessential amounts of organ material to grow new ones; the same could be done with blood or any vital fluid. That way, the prisoners are neither killed nor subjected to any kind of cruel or unusual punishment.

I suppose I would also like to know if you think that enough people would use the DP to seek near immortality by making every offense a capital offense as the voters did in the Niven tale.

Nah, there are much cheaper ways to achieve immortality (or, more precisely, indefinite lifespan) that are much longer lasting, durable and don't present anywhere near the moral conflict of harvesting organs from prisoners. Honestly, it's likely organs will become very cheap and abundant in the coming years, making it unnecessary to harvest them or grow them unwillingly. It'll be another medical supply like any other, carefully engineered and enhanced for maximum value.

Of course, if society did start abusing a system like that for its own gains, that would be a pretty evil thing to do; punishment should always be commensurate to the crime and should definitely not be used selfishly.

One of the key arguments that the anti-capital punishment crowd loves to use and which, with only a few exceptions, is nearly undeniably true is that the death penalty benefits no one, that it does not bring back the dead and does not save anyone.Since when? Prison doesn't really help anyone either, but the "crowd" opposed to capital punishment doesn't (generally) have the same principled objections to the prison system. A much more popular argument is this: even if one concludes that some crimes merit death, capital punishment is so poorly and unfairly applied--even after extraordinarily costly appeals--that on balance justice is better served by forsaking the practice altogether.

But what if that weren't the case? What if instead of hanging or beheading or poisoning someone to death they were instead carved up and stored in organ banks?That would be worse. Ethically, we shouldn't give ourselves (as a society) an incentive to enforce the death penalty. If we are going to apply it at all, we should not allow ourselves to benefit from it materially--surely it is not something we mean to encourage except in those cases which, after sober reflection, truly merit the ultimate punishment.

Don't you realize that this is the point of "The Jigsaw Man"?

Now, I'm not an American, but I could've sworn your constitution had something forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.

But of course, that can always be changed. It's not like your nation was built on the concept of freedom and certain inalienable human rights, after all.

That's what I'd call a bad hair day.

That's what i'd call inevitable, given a writer's strike.

Now, I'm not an American, but I could've sworn your constitution had something forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.

But of course, that can always be changed. It's not like your nation was built on the concept of freedom and certain inalienable human rights, after all.

It's just a goddamn piece of paper!
:(

Don't you realize that this is the point of "The Jigsaw Man"?
Yes, I did. The Belt escaped the social effects of advanced organ transplantation and storage, Earth did not. Still, it was an interesting take on the issue of capital crime and punishment. I'm suprised at how few proponents of the death penalty have actually used this to further their agendum. I started this thread to see what others on NSG thought of the story and the practice of using the death of a man to further the lives of the law-abiding. In the story the voters chose this form of deprivation because of the potential for a murderer to save lives and give back to the society that he or she harmed. Eventually people abused this when the already healthy but aging found that they could extend their lives with a steady supply of replacement organs, fluids, and tissues. Do you think that real voters would appriove such a measure and if so, do you think that they would come to abuse it for personal gain?

Now, I'm not an American, but I could've sworn your constitution had something forbidding cruel and unusual punishment.
Cruel and unusual would be a public flogging, death by drowning, real torture, and creative punishments that some judges are handing out to the accused today. Death itself is neither cruel or unusual, it is an inevitability. Sentencing someone to life in prison is a kind of death penalty, a very slow and costly and cruel method. If you wanted to make it affordable by giving those condemned to life in prison crappy food you'd only enhance the cruelty of their punishment. You can't escape cruelty in punishment.

But of course, that can always be changed. It's not like your nation was built on the concept of freedom and certain inalienable human rights, after all.
If the US consititution could not be amended slavery would still be legal here. America was founded on liberty and rights but also on the backs of slaves and indentured servants. Not everyone treated their slaves like crap but even some of the founders kept more than a few.

One of the key arguments that the anti-capital punishment crowd loves to use and which, with only a few exceptions, is nearly undeniably true is that the death penalty benefits no one, that it does not bring back the dead and does not save anyone. But what if that weren't the case? What if instead of hanging or beheading or poisoning someone to death they were instead carved up and stored in organ banks? In the classic Niven short "The Jigsaw Man" the condemned would be rendered unconscious and chilled before being fed into a mechanical surgeon that would vivisect a convict. Blood is drained, skin folded, organs jarred, even the eyes and ears and bones and hair are taken. When all is said and done there isn't even a corpse, just a few parts on table. The idea is that with a little luck the condemned will save more lives than they stole.

What I want to know is have you read the story, what do you think of this practice, and for what crime would this be suitable?

That's not a bad idea.

That's not a bad idea.
Erm, yes it is.

For starters - eugh. Secondly - you really think that people are going to be particularly cheery when they get a serial killer's eyes. Also - what the fuck would you want their hair and skin for?

What happens when it turns out that the guy you sliced to pieces is innocent? Are you going to do the same to the judge, jury, and prosecutor?

What happens when it turns out that the guy you sliced to pieces is innocent? Are you going to do the same to the judge, jury, and prosecutor?
That was also addressed in the story. At the end the crimes were revealed to be misdemeanors, the only reason that Lew was up for the vivisection was because he had been arrested for a DWI. Even though he was later acquitted in that case the prosecutor tried to use the arrest to convict him and get him carved up like a tukey. It was about a society that was abusing something intended to save lives, much in the same way that embrionic stem cell researchers are attempting to save lives. Do you think it is okay to sacrifice one life to save two or more?

Erm, yes it is.

For starters - eugh. Secondly - you really think that people are going to be particularly cheery when they get a serial killer's eyes. Also - what the fuck would you want their hair and skin for?

I'm thinking more of internal organs.

I'm thinking more of internal organs.
Eugh, also no. THEY'D BE EEEEVIL!

Eugh, also no. THEY'D BE EEEEVIL!

Meep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by South Lorenya
What happens when it turns out that the guy you sliced to pieces is innocent? Are you going to do the same to the judge, jury, and prosecutor?

Wow, it looks like another one of the arguments that says "Capital Punishment is wrong cause you kill innocent people"
I have to say, this is the argument that I most hate against the death penalty. Why? Well, lets look at it. What would be a reasonable amount of innocents killed in the process of implementing the death penalty on deranged killers? From a statistical standpoint, under 1% is usually considered pretty good. How many have actually been executed innocently?

Since 1976 (when the federal death penalty was re-introduced after a hiatus), not one person executed has been later found to be innocent. And, our investigative methods have gotten better, so the chance dwindles even lower. Oh, and i;m challenged people to find one counter-example, and I've yet to be met with an answer. (At least non-deterant arguments are supported by facts)
Oh, i know that there have been some people taken off of death row before execution, but isn't that why we have this system set up? If it works, don't fix it.

As for the question proposed, it sounds like a great idea. Of course, I am also of the opinion that death row people can volunteer to be put through testing of products (in lieu of animal testing, since it would serve a purpose and be more accurate).

PS How does one "quote" using that box?

In theory, I've no qualms with that idea, bit in practice...

Also - what the fuck would you want their hair and skin for?
Burn victims need replacement skin to live and may want hair to replace what they lost.

That was also addressed in the story. At the end the crimes were revealed to be misdemeanors, the only reason that Lew was up for the vivisection was because he had been arrested for a DWI. Even though he was later acquitted in that case the prosecutor tried to use the arrest to convict him and get him carved up like a tukey. It was about a society that was abusing something intended to save lives, much in the same way that embrionic stem cell researchers are attempting to save lives. Do you think it is okay to sacrifice one life to save two or more?

Uh, what? Embryonic stem cell research does not "abuse lives" unless you consider embryos to be alive...

Furthermore, this idea is absolutely ridiculous, barbaric, and utterly cruel. Considering we'll have the technology to manufacture organs in a variety of ways within a few years or so, it's also entirely unnecessary.

Uh, what? Embryonic stem cell research does not "abuse lives" unless you consider embryos to be alive...
I'm anti-life so I have no problem killing stuff so that I can live, especially children because I can't stand screaming kids. Embryos are living tissue and genetically human, they are where human life starts. I see no reason not to destroy that if I will benefit in some way. I know that makes me evil and heartless but I really don't care so long as I can live forever or at least a really, really long time. This is getting off track though, this thread is not about embryonic stem cell research, nor is it about abortion. It is about the morality of getting something good out of execution and what crime would possibly merit such a punishment.

Furthermore, this idea is absolutely ridiculous, barbaric, and utterly cruel. Considering we'll have the technology to manufacture organs in a variety of ways within a few years or so, it's also entirely unnecessary.
I think the story was written in the 70s or something like that. Back then growing new organs was not an option and it wasn't exactly looking like it was right around the corner either.

Anyone know what happens when someone carrying a donor card is executed?

Wow, it looks like another one of the arguments that says "Capital Punishment is wrong cause you kill innocent people"
It's more like 'Capital Punishment kills people, and if they were later found to be innocent then they're still dead. Further, human beings are fallible, so it is inevitable than an innocent person will be wrongfully executed, if it hasn't happened already'

PS How does one "quote" using that box?
The tages are The stuff they wrote.
Anyone know what happens when someone carrying a donor card is executed?
I don't know, though I hear they autopsy people after they've exectuted them.

What would be a reasonable amount of innocents killed in the process of implementing the death penalty on deranged killers? From a statistical standpoint, under 1% is usually considered pretty good. How many have actually been executed innocently?


Clearly 0% of innocent people is the only acceptable percentage of innocent people killed by a judicial system.