- Joined
- Aug 19, 2024
- Messages
- 1,035
- Reaction score
- 1,219
Trafficking organs is not legal, of course, we all are aware of that. I quote 'Forced organ harvesting is the illegal practice of surgically removing a victim's organs against their will.'
However, we must concern the issue with inmates facing death sentence. The carceral population is not an asset, but a liability, since their detention, control, surveillance, and feeding cost money.
Saying yes or no to the dead sentence of inmates is another subject that must be debated on it's own.
There are many ways that are used to execute inmates in the 21st century, electirc chair, shooting by assault riffle, hanging, gaz chamber, lethal injection, drowning, and others. The problem with these methods, is that they are costly, and could be often painful to the criminal, to a certain extent which is a detail in itself.
Would it be better to kill inmates with guillotine, the same system that were used by the french during the revolution. The first advantage of the guillotine, is that it is cheap, and easy to set up, the second advantage of the guillotine is that it is fast, enabling the death of hundreds of inmates in a single hour.
But most importantly, the guillotine do not harm internal organs which would enable their harvesting.
For example, getting organs from sane inmates would be a good thing to society, simply because it will be able to save lives of common citizens or to make money by selling those same organs on the market to foreigner, which in both cases, are positive outcomes.
Taking a live to save another or to make money out of it is a good trade to me. Most human-rights zealots would be against that idea, on paper, but what does that change, if a criminal is hanged, killed by eletricity or by guillotine, it does not change anything, and guillotine is the most painless death, among the only method that enable organs harvesting, that would save many lives back.
So, what do you think about it ?
However, we must concern the issue with inmates facing death sentence. The carceral population is not an asset, but a liability, since their detention, control, surveillance, and feeding cost money.
Saying yes or no to the dead sentence of inmates is another subject that must be debated on it's own.
There are many ways that are used to execute inmates in the 21st century, electirc chair, shooting by assault riffle, hanging, gaz chamber, lethal injection, drowning, and others. The problem with these methods, is that they are costly, and could be often painful to the criminal, to a certain extent which is a detail in itself.
Would it be better to kill inmates with guillotine, the same system that were used by the french during the revolution. The first advantage of the guillotine, is that it is cheap, and easy to set up, the second advantage of the guillotine is that it is fast, enabling the death of hundreds of inmates in a single hour.
But most importantly, the guillotine do not harm internal organs which would enable their harvesting.
For example, getting organs from sane inmates would be a good thing to society, simply because it will be able to save lives of common citizens or to make money by selling those same organs on the market to foreigner, which in both cases, are positive outcomes.
Taking a live to save another or to make money out of it is a good trade to me. Most human-rights zealots would be against that idea, on paper, but what does that change, if a criminal is hanged, killed by eletricity or by guillotine, it does not change anything, and guillotine is the most painless death, among the only method that enable organs harvesting, that would save many lives back.
So, what do you think about it ?



