GIVE = Gifts of Anatomical Value from the Executed

organs are organs. why would the recipient need to know they received the heart of a serial killer?

This is a very interesting idea. Patients wait on a list for years and never see an organ they can use. I don't know the exact number of prisoners that die in a given year from capital punishment, but if this was a plan that instated, then I can see that wait on the list not being so long. As long as the organs, of course, were medically sound.

It's if nothing, a great way for the inmates to do something good for all the bad they may or may not have caused in their life.

In my opinion, it woud be fair
if murderers were killed in the same way that thay executed their crimes
e.g., a knife for a knife or run over by a car the same way, etc.,
insofar as is reasonably practicable.

After that, if the criminal chooses to donate anything, so be it.





David

That's a sure fire way to get everyone who hates capital punishment knocking down the doors of their local prison.

Though I agree, the punishment should fit the crime.

BRILLIANT!! This idea qould go far in preventing AN ORGAN GAP!!

OK, call it weird, but some of the folks who 've received organs have said that
thay inherited some of the traits of the donor.
For instance, one fellow on TV said that he abruptly acquired a yearning for Chicken McNuggets.
Upon investigation, it turned out that he got the heart of an unfortunate motorcyclist who was returning from McDonald's
with the McNuggets held under his jacket, over his heart when he fell to the Grim Reaper.

I have heard of this as well. But I think it is a better option then going for a baboons heart or something.

People always have an option. Though I think that if I was present with a serial killers heart and another unknown amount of time on the donor list I would take what was readily avialable!

Larry Niven, sci-fi writer, warns of a time in the future in which organ harvesting from convicted criminals becomes more and more acceptable to a society desperate to prolong their lives...

Cycloptichorn

This is an idea that is only slightly less terrible than capital punishment itself. When the state both harvests the organs and provides the bodies, that sets up an unavoidable conflict of interest. As we see right now with China, the state's eagerness to harvest the organs of convicted criminals inevitably influences its decisions to charge suspects with capital crimes and to rush forward with their executions.

If it's completely voluntary -- and as Cycloptichorn indicates, I'd want there to be some pretty strict guidelines to ensure that it's actually completely voluntary -- I think it's a great idea.

Well, many people eat organs such as livers, kidneys, etc as well as flesh from animals that have been "executed" so why the squeamishness? However the overriding argument for me is that capital punishment is wrong and should be abolished.

There is always something to be gained immorally from the most moral and just causes. And sadly there is always someone out there looking for that thing. It's a horrible cycle.

There's a way you could be executed and still be able to donate?

As far as I can see, that would mean having you in a hospital, killing your brain, and keeping your body alive for the time it takes.

My concern would be that it would come to act as a pressure to keep murdering people "legally".

Personally, if I were to be awaiting execution, I would like to think that something good could come out of it.....but not at the expense of lending any support to capital punishment.

Though this whole issue is a by product of capital punishment.

Yes....that is an interesting ethical factor.

I was just focusing more, I guess, on possible (I would say highly probable) effects.

When ever life and death come into play the ethical factor always comes into play. When the ethical factor comes into play there are always people who take each side. There is nothing wrong with this. There are people who take the extreme left or right sides of this as well. I think this is where things go wrong. It's ok to have an opinion on something, and even feel strongly about it. But these people who go to the extremes are often the ones that mar the debate and skew it beyond belief.

I agree. If that damn Rosa Parks had just known that her place was the back of the bus, if those silly students from the north hadn't gone to Mississippi and stirred up trouble, [and don't get me started on James Meredith], we could all still be debating desegregation.

Haha I see what you mean. If I gave the impression that no good ever comes out of those kinds of situations then I apologize. As you stated quite a few good situations, I was talking more along the lines of abortion clinic bombings.

In Great Britain, in the 1970s, there were a number of miscarriages of justice where Irish people were given long prison sentences for allegedly carrying out IRA (Irish Republican Army) bomb attacks.

One group, the Birmingham Six, were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1975. The prosecution presented evidence that they had confessed, and also expert forensic evidence said to show they had handled explosives. They made 3 appeals, in 1976, 1988, and 1991. The first two were turned down, and their third appeal, in 1991, was successful. New evidence of police fabrication of their confessions and suppression of evidence led to the Crown withdrawing most of its case against the men.

The Court of Appeal stated about the forensic evidence that the expert witness Dr. Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974.

In 2001, a decade after their release, the six men were awarded compensation ranging from £840,000 to £1.2 million.

A famous senior judge, Lord Denning, said said that if the Birmingham Six had been hanged “we shouldn’t have had all these campaigns to get them released”. (He had been forced to resign in 1982 after saying that He said that "black, coloured and brown" people did not have the same standards of conduct as whites.)