Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Debate

Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Removal of organs itself is good idea to execute a person. It will make sure that organs of the death inmates are getting utilized according to their will.

Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I wonder why only death inmates? Every one should donate his body? Some one can get a new life after your.

Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

It sounds really interesting. killers are donating their organs to give another person a new life. Despite of great scientific advancements we are not able to fulfill their last wish.

Nathan

Nathan — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Killing the prisoners to provide organs to the rich? It’s really a shame on humanity. It will be better if we promote volunteer donation of organs after the death.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

The reason they can’t use the organs is because they are killed with poison!

Only in certain cases can organs be used, electrocuted organs can’t be used either.

Even if you donate your organs, if your body does not arrive at the hospital within a few minutes after death and in relatively good condition, the organs can’t be used.

Oscar

Oscar — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

it’s seems like such a waste, but true, wgat do you do with organs that have been put thru the electric chair, gas chamber, ..perhaps lethal injection? or perhaps the prisoner could request an alternative type of death....and have doctors on site for immediate transfer of body/organs.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Though the whole debate is truly horrifying for me because I am against the death penalty.

Then you have to wonder if corruption did not have a hand in who was arrested and tried, not to mention in who gets the organs.

But, if they are going to do it anyway... the best way would be guillotine, I would think. Hanging causes asphyxiation, and firing squad causes too much damage.

Prasad

Prasad — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Nuya

You are right. There is no need of death penalty. The purpose of every kind of punishment should be to bring about the changes in the criminals. Eliminating the human life is not a solution.

Aneez

Aneez — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Such an irony! The person in question is on the death row because the society feels he is not fit to live in the society. Then how can we even think about using their organs to save the life of a specimen from the same society which has banished him and gifted him death?! I mean, it is totally unethical.

And, if the dying inmate himself wishes to donate his organs... it proves that he is not so inhuman after all. That again questions the ethics of the society... should it proceed with such person’s execution??

Because, if we use his organ in such situation, we are tagging ourselves as merciless and selfish.

Souransu

Souransu — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Aneez

You raised a genuine issue. Is it right to execute such a person who wishes to donate his organs after his death? It shows the human face of criminals. I think any criminal who wishes to donate his organs after death should not be executed. His organs can be used after his natural death.

Inspector

Inspector — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Aneez, you have given this debate a new angle. This is indeed ironic to even think about harvesting organs of inmates but to think about it from the other side of the spectrum it can be really a good idea.

the person on death row has definitely committed crimes that deserve the severest of punishments. While a life is to be ended and example to be set then why just waste the organs. That person’s gonna die anyway, so why not think of ways to harvest organs and save some lives.

Aneez

Aneez — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

@ Rakesh

Please read my response to Leena for my views on your idea. I do agree somewhat with you, but ultimately, we are doing what HE has done. We term his act as crime and award him death penalty, but we don’t even question ourselves while doing the same thing. (This is applicable to situations where the organs are used without the death row inmate’s permission)

As for the cases where he willingly agrees to donate his organs, well, HE is entitled to get pardoned for his crime (according to your logic... because if suppose he is getting death penalty for killing someone, then what’s the use of killing HIM and taking another person’s life... the one who is killed (by him) is killed anyway, lets forget the crime, stop at the loss of just one life and proceed with the charity work...pardon the death row inmate.)

:-)

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Exactly! Murder is murder no matter if it is done by an individual or a government. I don’t even trust the government to arrest and convict the right person, I surely would not trust them to kill the right person.

How many times have they released an innocent person because DNA evidence that was collected years ago was not able to be tested properly back then?

Parpar

Parpar — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

In any case these people are to be killed, if they act as a medium to save a life, there’s nothing better than that.

Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

The comments proves the hypocrisy of the humans...on one hand they are killing somebody and on the other hand using the same person for the survival of other human.

Ekta

Ekta — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

People who disagree with the idea have very strong and valid point. But instead of emotions, if we think practically, these people are ought to die. Once its decided as a punishment, they will die and no one can stop that.

Now, instead of wasting their functional body parts, if they are used to give life to somebody who needs it, then i don’t think its selfish. This is a good cause, in which the criminals can also contribute.

Leena

Leena — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

A person kills someone and gets the death penalty. Is there a better way to make amends for his/her crime than to part with his/her organs to make someone live?

Aneez

Aneez — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

@ Leena

This makes sense! In fact, this is the attitude that the society need to show... however, this calls for certain amendments - not for his crime but something else. Like, changing the term from ”Death Penally” to ”Death Through Removal of Vital Organs”

Then we can use the organs without any guilt or shame!

Prasad

Prasad — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Leena

I think the death penalty itself is an inhumane act. Why should we execute any one for men made laws? Where as there is a question of donating the organs, every one should donate his body after death. But religious myths don’t allow the people to do so.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Leena,

There is a better way for them to make amends, stay behind bars and work for the rest of their natural lives and all the proceeds go the victims, their families and the poor. Prisons can be built on farm land, factories for packaging food and making clothes can be built there. There are lots of things that could be done. What serves no purpose is them sitting around watching TV and playing basketball for years.

Leena

Leena — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

@ aneez,

Death through removal of vital organs might appear unethical. But think about the murderer who had taken someone else’s life. Here we are talking about removal of organs under anesthesia. The accused, on the other hand, might have brutally killed another person by mercilessly ripping off his organs!

Leena

Leena — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

@ Prasad,

Of course! The death penalty does appear inhuman. But if we don’t have the right to execute someone for man made laws, what right does the accused have of taking another person’s life? Religious myths might not allow removal of body parts. But I think for a noble cause it can be done. Think about those people who will get a chance to live owing to the transplantation. Even from the religious point of view, if you have taken someone’s life, you can give someone life and make amends for your crime !

Leena

Leena — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Nuya,

I do agree with you and what you are saying is one of the apt ways to punish the accused. But think about so many people who are dying owing to a dearth of organs for transplantation. In such a case, a person who is going to die anyway (the accused) can agree to end his life by doing a noble act. At least society will not remember him as a murder but as a giver of life.

Gaurav

Gaurav — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

@ Nuya and Aneez,

I agree that by giving death penalty to somebody, even govt is committing murder but if we look at it deeply, death sentence is passed for the murderers. These are the people who have killed somebody and you know that some of he murderers are responsible for multi-killings and some for their brutal way of killing someone. They can’t be left out and by keeping them in jails for years is gonna increase the govt expenses.

Somewhere i agree with Leena that these people are hard core criminals and do not deserve as much sympathy from us that they get.

i’ll quote a little example here, on 26/11, before killing the foreigners in the hotel rooms, the terrorists abused them physically and sexually. The bodies were found naked. You really think they still deserve sympathy??

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I have no sympathy at all for them, I couldn’t give 2 shits about the guilty ones.

It comes down to us not being any more civilized than the murderers. I want humanity to get past its lust for blood, we can’t do that as long as we have state sponsored murder.

Then there is the wrongly convicted ones to consider.

Sanwali

Sanwali — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Guys, please read this...the one who faces criminals can only feel the actual agony.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=e0f19b7f797a88329619423be1508181&gid=104786470334&ref=search

Gaurav

Gaurav — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

Oops!! That was horrible...some things should never happen.

Thanks for the link Sanwali.

Cesar

Cesar — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

The worst part is that they are still living freely. Where’s justice??

Michael Davison

Michael Davison — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

First of all, let me say that I am not for the death penalty—NOT as a penalty per se, but because of the all too real factor of human error in trials. Too many convictions have been reversed in recent years because of new technologies that helped prove innocence. The death penalty is irreversible.

Having said that, some countries do harvest the organs of executed prisoners—China, for one, comes to mind—but the preferred method of execution in China is a bullet to the back of the head, which leaves vital organs intact and usable for transplant if they’re harvested properly.

The only method of execution practiced in the US that leaves organs intact and usable is hanging (and modern hanging is not done by asphyxiation, as one poster commented—the fall is designed to break the person’s neck, causing instant death). Electrocution, gas, firing squads and lethal injection all render the organs unfit for transplant. Maybe Islam, with its preference for beheading, has the right idea.

Another issue is the prisoner’s rights. Each individual has the right to decide on his body’s fate after death—and the reasons for not donating organs are many, not just religious beliefs—although I would say that any person who refuses to become an organ donor on the grounds of religious beliefs should also not be allowed to benefit from organ transplants for the same reason. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

However, the bottom line is simply that in a democracy, you can not force a person to do something they don’t want to do, as long as it’s legal—and not becoming an organ donor is still legal.

Jayanta Bhattacharya

Jayanta Bhattacharya — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I am a die hard anti-death penalty guy. Death penalty in itself is an oxymoron. You cannot punish a man by taking away his life but, you are taking away all his misery. Besides, executing a person is reminiscent of medieval savagery directed more at retribution than reforming a criminal.

To make matters worse, countries without any respect or value for human rights or human life are debating whether organs of executed persons can be used for transplantation. China for example is a nation that has made an industry out of human organs by carrying out executions on a industrial scale. For China, it is commercially viable to kill a man in the name of justice than to put him behind bars. Not surprisingly, China executes more people than any other country in the world. Not only critical organs of executed prisoners are removed, but even some bodily byproducts that are used in the cosmetic industry.

The whole thought of taking organs from executed prisoners is abhorring to say the least.

Leena

Leena — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I think this post is not about the validity of the death penalty but about how one is awarded death when the penalty is imposed on him. For such a person death is inevitable. Death by any means is gory. Whether you end the inmate’s life by firing, electrocution, shooting a bullet or other ways, the inmate has to go through the immensely cruel experience called death. There is no way out for him. In such a case a painless death by being rendered unconscious is something that appears to be more humane than the other methods. I think the prisoner should come forward for the cause of using his organs for the welfare of other human beings. Will he be able to retain his organs and enjoy his body in any case? When he has no choice but to part with his body, why not donate it for the welfare of the living?

Also, death penalty does seem cruel and unethical. Though there are innocent people who are serving the death sentence, the majority of them are hardcore criminals. Do you think if someone’s mother or child had been killed by a terrorist or a murderer, will anything other than a death sentence to the culprit do justice to his/her bereavement? In a such a case, is a death sentence not justified for a person who has taken the life of an innocent person?

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

How do you think killing a terrorist/murderer solves bereavement? It lets someone cheer for the death of another, gloat and take smug, malicious satisfaction in ending a human life.

I would think that would diminish a person rather than elevate them. I am not a religious person but somehow that just seems to add more negative energy to an already negative situation.

Leena

Leena — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I was not talking from the point of view of a thrid person, but from the point of a person who is affected by the situation. Nuya, for a moment, think if a dear one of yours is killed by someone for no fault of his/hers will anything other than a death sentence for the culprit satisfy you ?

I do agree when you mean to say that forgiveness is the ultimate quality that is desirable of a human being,but that is very difficult for the common man. The majority of people would only be satisfied when the culprit is given a ’tit for tat’ punishment.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I didn’t say to forgive them, that is more than humanly possible. I said be satisfied and relieved with them being behind bars for the rest of their lives and not out on the street killing someone else.

Why should death make anyone happy? What kind of person derives happiness from another person being killed? Is that the kind of mentality that we want to foster in human beings? Shouldn’t the aim of humanity be to improve the species? Can’t improve our species by hanging on to barbaric practices.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I think it would just add another layer of corruption to an already corrupt system. A person who had AB- negative blood, or tissue match to an influential person on the waiting list would not likely get a fair trial.

Leena

Leena — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

I think if the blood test or tissue matching is done after a fair trail where the culprit is found to be genuinely guilty, corruption can be prevented.

Nuya Bidness

Nuya Bidness — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

If there was a chance to make money from selling organs, a guard could be bribed to get a drop of blood or the hospital doctor to get a skin scraping while doing a routine exam etc.

I have lived long enough to learn that you can’t trust the government not to be corrupt.