Lets test on burglars, embezzlers and other whit collar criminals, prostitutes, marijuana users, and all those other criminals. Sorry if the irony is dripping from the word above. If you start something like this, then you have to ask yourself why stop there. If animals are so more important than humans then lets also give the death penalty to hunters and poachers.
So, no it should not be done.
It is ridiculous that in 2014 we still use innocent animals for testing such superficial products such as perfume and cosmetics etc.
Animals are living, breathing organisms and are often far more compassionate than humans, especially pedophiles.
If someone is so inconsiderate to other humans that they can sexually abuse children, then they deserve the worst punishments they can get.
I think that if it is for people than PEOPLE should test it. To many animal are being abused and we need to stop it. Most of the time if the container says not tested on animals it probably was. Now if the product was meant for animals than ANIMALS should test it. This is all animal abuse and not many people are taking a stand to it. It's about time we do. Just hear me out. If you see this happening (animal testing for human products or animal abuse) then stop it. If animals should test things for humans than humans should test things for animals.
Pedophiles abuse children's rights and are only sent to jail where they are fed three times a day and get to go outside and blah blah. Thats better then what the elderly are receiving in elderly homes! Animals are supposed to live their lives, not be stuck in a cage where they have machines and needles and possibly unstable substances put in them. NO AMERICA WHY WOULD WE DO THIS!!!!
Frankly, I am not supporting testing anything on anyone, but to be frank, criminals and such have done enough wrong to deserve this treatment more than animals. Besides, animal testing has been proven to be inconsistent on a number of occasions; one notable incident is when ten thousand pregnant mothers lost their children after taking a drug that was supposedly safe, tested on animals.
Why do i have have to support anything seei g how fucked it really is. Why waste law enforcements time tie up the courts and waste tax payer money keeping those dumb fucks around use em as test subjects for new products or put a bullet in their head simple and effective n also FUCK THOSE SUPPORT GROUPS you can't even be a vigilanty n take matters in ur own hands to make sure justice is served to em cuz ull go to jail for giving what they deserve. . .
If a pedophile is rightly accused and has abused more than in a manner in which they may have scarred a child for life then yes! Children will become traumatised for the rest of their life due to the sickening nature of these people, what goes there way to say they should live?! Animals yes they are not at such power to be doing great things but aren't we them? Every year we are killing animals through things such as abuse deforestation etc. Getting rid of the animals from animal testing is a fantastic idea!
The poor animals have done nothing to us But pedophiles have ruined the lives of our children! Though it would be better if they did it on rapists and murderers instead. I mean really the poor innocent animals did nothing to us, I saw a video of lab dogs getting set free and it was adorable!
A pedophile is NOT the same as a child molester. There is no need for punishment unless the pedophile had committed a crime. I know, pedophilia isn't right, but pedos aren't always bad people. They just need help. Now I am just filling this remaining space that needs to be filled.
Prisoners have rights too and it is simply inhumane to subject them to the the testing of various substances. Pedophiles are certainly morally wrong in their actions. But we should have the decency to not treat them like animals. Of course, is prisoners were ok with such testing, it would be acceptable to test them. However, I highly doubt any prisoner wants to undergo such procedures.
Pedophilia, like it or not is a psycho-sexual condition. According to the American Psychiatric Association:
"[Pedophiles] would be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder either if their attractions toward children are causing them guilt, anxiety, alienation, or difficulty in pursuing other personal goals, or else if their urges cause them to approach children for sexual gratification in real life,"
Even as I believe pedophiles should be tagged and their neighbors warned -- I cannot in good conscience support the affirmative -- because that would mean the imposition of excessive punitive and degrading measures on a human being who has very little control over his/her own impulses.
Pedophilia can be treated/controlled with therapy and is often considered extremely effective.
I would say no if there was any chance whatsoever that someone could be convicted of child molestation by a jury of their peers when they didn't actually do it but we all know that never happens. After all witnesses always tell the exact truth and children are never coached to lie and adults testifying about past abuse as children would never think of telling a lie to get back at someone.
And it's not like children's minds are more easily coaxed into having false memories even unintentionally through asking leading questions.
And it's not like victims ever have any trouble picking out the right person from a line-up. No there's never been a mistake made in that regard.
So since there is no risk whatsoever of hurting innocent people if we do this let's go ahead with it!
My vote for no is more the "living it up in jail" bit.
1. Pedo's don't go to jail they go prison
2. Pedo's aren't living it up.
Prison for those creeps pretty much a death sentence, just think how many lifers have kids thinking if that had been there kid. If that had been your kid and you've got nothing else to lose; what would you do?
I agree with capefear56, although I doubt there would be a significant enough population of test subjects for it really to be relevant to lead to any credible data, as one would need thousands of test subjects. Pedophiles are already such a minority of the population (only focusing on this group as it was the one suggested in the topic) and it is important to keep in mind that a pedophile is only someone with sexual urges towards generally 11 year olds or younger. The popular show "To catch a predator" actually showcased very few pedophiles for that reason. If we were to expand the group to other sub-categories of criminals, there might be the potential for significant testing numbers, however the criminal system isn't flawless, and there is a lot of potential for misuse of this idea (wrongly convicted criminals, manipulation of convicts by private companies to raise subject numbers, etc.)
If a convict were to consciously consent to such testing with a clear reduction in sentence, I do not see why he/she could not undergo certain experimentation. One drawback might be that should there be any medical complications, I believe that might cost us more money as tax payers as there is some type of health care provided to inmates (please comment correcting me if I'm wrong).
I am under the "no" category as I don't think this method should be used *in place of* testing on animals, rather merely a supplement and another step towards safer human testing on the general public. I think we have to accept we are the dominant species on Earth and as such we are able to utilize other living creatures to best suit us (livestock and produce for food, animal skin for clothing, rapidly reproducing animals for testing, etc.). This is something we have done since the beginning of mankind as has any other living creature that wishes to survive.
Even if we all agree that pedophiles are terrible people that behave immorally, they still have rights, including the right not to be used as lab rats. I think that is as far as I need to argue, but I need a few more words until I can post this.
This position is taken under the assumption that a convict is to be held for a number of years approximating the perceived value of the crime in question. Be in molestation, possession of child pornography, rape, or sexual harassment. If any given crime has a penal value x, and the punishment exceeds value x out of hatred and malice, then it is unjustifiable; as the value of their crime has already been predetermined by a court of law.
If, however, a reduction in time is to be awarded for voluntarily involvement in scientific experimentation, then one could see the pain inflicted upon a willing participant justified to the extent to which their own transgressions dictate.