Which do you think is worse?

Execution or using the people who are on death row(only if the will) to inject with cancer or aids or some other disease, so we can find a cure.

Execution or using the people who are on death row(only if the will) to inject with cancer or aids or some other disease, so we can find a cure. I think both are wrong but if they killed someone isn't that inhuman aswell? Besides is it really all that bad if they are willing to do it? I would rather spend my life helping other people(whether it means being a lab rat or not) helping people with thing like cancer and aids and such then rotting away in a jail cell. Besides i think testing on humans would be better than animals they are defencless. The people who made the choice to Kill someone or rape someone or something worse would be spending the rest of their lives in a jail cell, and they would have a choice to do it or not.

The death penalty is a barbaric form of revenge.
It should be abolished from the face of the Earth.

It is rather funny that USA is preaching human rights and civilization while executing people like in the Middle Ages.

Using human beings as test subjects to deseases is torture and can be punishable by law.

I think we should save the torture for the sex offenders on death row.

i think execution is worse at least if there getting injected they can do some good by trying to help find a cure for others

execution.

human experiments is just plain cruel.

#2. Would be worse. That would be considered cruel and unusual punishment or something.
Heck, we have a difficult enough time of it just trying to get them executed as it is.

They called them war crimes for a reason. The Nazis did just that to the Jews in concentration camps.
I do think that we should be executing more. Cut appeals down to two and get them out of the system sooner.
If they are found innocent at a later point,(Via DNA) then pay compensation to the family.

I think just executing them is worse (since I think you are saying they have the right to opt out), but I don't approve of either.

Probably injection of something like AIDS (you can't inject cancer, cancer is our bodies, but you can expose the individual to carcinogens. I'm not aware of such experiments because most carcinogens take about 20 years to manifest a cancer, probably well beyond the length of these trials). You have to keep in mind though that in order to be eligible to test an AIDS cure you must be an adult film star or a gay man with very high likelihood of getting HIV anyway, you have to be willing, and you get well compensated.

Hmmm... well I believe they have already discovered cures for cancer/aids/etc, but won't release it to the public because they are making too much money off of people who are sick... So injecting them with those diseases might be pretty cruel, but if the people did cruel things in their life, who's to say they do or don't deserve it?

the second one is truly sick to me.

where'd you get that idea, Hitler's playbook?

Option 2 would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It's unconstitutional. Also, food for thought, Nazi Germany experimented on "criminals" in the same manner.

People on death row have rights too. And where does it stop? If death row inmates don't deserve humane treatment how about rapists, thieves, tax evaders, or people who get parking tickets? They are all law breakers. Don't they all deserve to be used as lab rats?

Experimenting on prisoners?

Well, how very hitler of you.