Suz is making me bump this. I don't know why it wasn't moved to the Debate forum...one of you mods should do that.
I don't know how it works in the UK or anywhere else.
But in AMERICA...
Here's the deal about Death Row inmates and why you CANNOT do drug testing on them:
A) Prisoners have rights that are protected by the supreme law of the land - the Constitution.
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
There are, of course, other State and federal laws that protect the rights of criminals, such as the Miranda law, but who cares about those. The Constitution reigns supreme.
Drug testing without consent would constitute as cruel and unusual punishment. While most drug tests won't have the affect that TGN1412 did - most would be quite harmless - the possibility that it
could happen means that it would be against the Eighth Amendment and thus
illegal...until we are ready to amend the Constitution in order to allow it.
B) Most of the prisoners who are on Death Row are in the middle of some sort of appeal. Generally, this goes to the State Supreme Court (in other words, this would be their third trial, and the second time they have appealed) or the Intermediate Court of Appeals (for federal offenses, their second trial or first time they have appealed). Very few will make it to the Supreme Court.
However, while the Sixth Amendment does guaruntee a criminal a right to speedy trial...this only counts towards the first trial, in the District Courts (federal level) or Major/Minor Trial Courts (state level). The trials going on in the appellate level (as in, they are appealing, but are not at the US Supreme Court level) can last for years and years. The process leading UP to the trial...in other words, them waiting in line to be tried...can be years and years. The court system is that slow. =P
So at any given time, MOST of the prisoners on the Death Row are going to have or are in the middle of an appeal. What that means is that - you can't touch them, because there is still a chance they could be found not guilty and released, or at the very least, be taken off Death Row. The latter is quite common. And the former has happened especially with all these cases that are being appealed based on new DNA evidence that revealed their innocence.
It turns out that we HAVE killed people before who were innocent - now that we have DNA evidence, we've found out that there have been mistakes in the past. And there still could BE innocent people on Death Row, even though they were found guilty. That sucks, but hey, whaddyagonna do? The possibility always exists. Hey, we're gonna kill them - why torture them, too?
Which ALSO brings up the point that some are just mentally ill. The whole "get off with insanity plea" thing is relatively new, and there still exists a large number of people in the prison system...and on Death Row...who really are probably mentally ill. So you're subjecting a mentally ill person to torture? Good going.
C) At any time, a prisoner on Death Row can be pardoned by the governor of that State or by the President. Once again, don't laugh, it HAS happened before. And guess what...once you're pardoned, it doesn't matter what you did, you're free to go. Clinton pardoned a ton of people in the last few weeks he was President. I'm sure Bush will do the same. At the very least, the governor or President can remove the death sentence, which is more frequent. A certain criminal will get a lot of media attention, the governor will buckle under the pressure and the prisoner will be removed from Death Row.
There's movies or whatever, where like five minutes before they kill the guy, there's a call from the governor. That HAS happened.
So what is the point of that? If you are talking about Death Row inmates only...then you can't, simply because someone could be taken off at any time - and by then, he's not going to die, and you've possibly made him live the rest of his life in pain. A very long, horrible life.
And if you're talking about people who could possibly be pardoned - well, then you're talking about mutilating a potentially free citizen, who has to live the rest of his life in pain.
And let's extend this...let's say that it's ALL people who have life imprisonment without parole shall be subject to drug testing. You've got people who done a severity of crimes...some very nasty who didn't get the death penalty...some who did something relatively minor. You've got too much going on. How can you justify - as something they deserve - in a sample too wide and varied?
D) Not all States HAVE the death penalty, anyway. You've got a bit of an unfair assumption going on - it's better to do your crime in this State, because you won't be tortured.
As of July 1, 2005, there were 3,415 prisoners awaiting execution in the United States. Of these, seven were officially on Death Row in more than one U.S. state.
And somehow...I doubt that's enough people for them to do their drug testing, even if none of them were in the middle of an appeal. =P
E) It doesn't make sense scientifically. When they do drug testing, most of the time they are looking for people with certain qualifications. They have a family history of this, they've suffered that before, etc etc. Very rarely do they just pick normal people off the street.
And even
then, would you qualify Death Row inmates as normal? If you're looking for just a healthy body, that's one thing. But most drug testing looks at psychological effects, as well. As I said before, I seriously doubt that
all of the people on Death Row are in their right mind. Most of them probably are certifiably insane. Because they have a mental illness, they already have disqualified themselves for most testing because it would affect the outcome, unless it was a drug to help that specific condition.
Most prisoners who aren't insane already share the same psychological profile
anyway, thus making them a horrible test sample.
Also, the prison system is corrupt. There are a lot of (illegal) drugs going through there, and so you will also have quite a few people who could possibly have an foreign substance that would disrupt the testing.
And FURTHERMORE, the population is small, once again. If you're doing drug testing, you cannot have foreign substances going through the body - like previous drug tests. Depending on the substance, it can stay in the body for quite a long time, so once you start testing, the sample of healthy, drug-free participants goes down dramatically. That is to say, a previous experiment didn't do something irreversible, at which point they would disqualify for all further drug tests - because once again, it could affect the outcome of testing.
So you'd run out of participants very, very quickly. The test sample is not varied, thus it's a bad experiment. And it's possible that previous testing could affect future testing. So why would ANY clinical study want to test on Death Row inmates? It wouldn't make sense from the standpoint of a scientist.
------
Oh, and...I'm all for animal testing, as long as testing follows the hierarchy of dumbest to smartest - which it does. They start on mice, and progress up to monkeys, even chimps, at which point you carry on to humans. Therefore, any animal with any sort of ability to experience pain and remember the effects (traumatized) won't get the drug until it's already undergone other testing, and hopefully the worst ones are already weeded out by then. The final animal being humans. =P
Humans ARE animals, and if were going to do ANY testing, why discriminate. At least start from the bottom and go to the top, as they do now.
There's nothing wrong with the current system. <shrugs>
It sucks that something like that happened, but - y'know...those cases are so rare that we shouldn't be scared off from all drug testing because of it. Shit happens, try to learn from it, and get over it. That's all you can do if you're gonna progress forward.
Edited by Casilla, 23 March 2006 - 06:17 AM.
