Is it justifiable to conduct human experiments on violent criminals? This article explores the conflict between human rights, ethics, and scientific progress, examining the possibilities and limitations of such experiments.
Not long ago, while browsing the web, I came across a post on a personal blog that asked, “Wouldn’t it be possible to use people incarcerated in prisons (inmates) for human experiments?” The post proposed conducting experiments on people who had been sentenced to death and were going to die anyway, arguing that it would be better for them to contribute to social welfare and scientific progress than to simply die. Furthermore, it argued that experiments could be conducted on so-called “vicious criminals”—particularly those who had caused significant social outrage, such as serial killers—regardless of whether they consented.
Although this may seem like an extreme idea, the argument was presented with its own logic and made a plausible case, so there were moments when I could partially sympathize with it. However, even if someone is a heinous criminal who has caused a major social uproar, is it acceptable for the government and society to conduct experiments on them while disregarding their human rights? My conclusion to this question is that “human experimentation is unacceptable.”
Of course, if experiments on human subjects pose no risk to the health of the test subjects (people), there would be no issue. However, considering that the path of science throughout human history has not always left a trail of righteousness, I will proceed with my argument based on the premise that there is a significant possibility that such experiments could adversely affect the health of the subjects.
First, I believe the fundamental premise of such an argument is flawed. The basic principle of this argument is as follows: it posits a premise of “reaping what one sows” or “karma,” asserting that since a vicious criminal has violated the human rights of others, we are under no obligation to protect that criminal’s human rights. This principle of “reaping what one sows” raises many problems. For example, just because someone broke my leg in an accident does not mean I can break the perpetrator’s leg. Similarly, I believe that even a heinous criminal does not need to become a subject of unwanted experiments, regardless of his past actions.
Furthermore, the person who broke my leg has no reason to have his leg broken; instead, he must find another appropriate way to compensate me for the harm I suffered. In the same way, a heinous criminal has already received the punishment of the death penalty in accordance with the law for the crimes he committed. Therefore, he has no reason to be a subject of human experimentation.
Those who oppose this view will argue that it is wrong for the crimes of a heinous criminal to be simply swept under the rug with a death sentence or life imprisonment. They will also assert the necessity and legitimacy of experiments on prisoners, citing the interests of society as a whole. However, even a moment’s reflection reveals clear reasons why this idea should not—and cannot—be realized.
Second, attempting to implement such an idea is difficult because the criteria for defining a “vicious criminal” are ambiguous. Crimes come in various types, and punishment is meted out according to the law based on the type and severity of the offense. However, unlike determining the type of crime, there are no clear standards for measuring the degree of criminality. When comparing someone who steals a small amount of money to someone who steals a large sum, or someone who kills a few people to someone who kills many, it is impossible to take an objective approach without subjective judgment coming into play. Since it is impossible to precisely define “vicious criminals” who have caused significant social upheaval, human experimentation targeting only such individuals is impossible.
Third, supporting experiments on heinous criminals represents a misplaced prioritization of values. Proponents argue that such experiments are permissible when considering the welfare and interests of society as a whole. However, the dignity of human life must take precedence over all other values. Even if an action is undertaken for the welfare and interests of society, if it proceeds while disregarding moral values such as the dignity of life, it will ultimately harm the welfare and interests of society as a whole.
Another controversial issue that has recently come to the fore is research involving children. I also hold a negative view on this matter. The first issue is how to strike a balance between protecting children from human rights violations and the necessity of experiments for the advancement of scientific research. Research involving children is problematic because, unlike adults, children lack sufficient decision-making capacity, making it difficult to obtain consent from the child themselves; instead, consent must be obtained from parents or other guardians, and in this process, the child’s own wishes are not reflected.
Second, while therapeutic research is justified on the grounds of benefiting children’s health, non-therapeutic research is controversial regarding its permissibility due to the potential risks it poses, which outweigh the potential health benefits. While non-therapeutic research may be unavoidable to advance the health and well-being of children in society as a whole, it raises concerns regarding the protection of the human rights of the children involved.
Third, when the research subjects are children in residential care facilities, there is a high risk of human rights violations. Children in such facilities are precisely those who require greater protection, yet they are often used as research subjects for the sake of experimental convenience and medical efficiency; this utilitarian approach is deeply problematic.
To summarize, the idea of conducting experiments on violent criminals is based on a flawed premise; if implemented, it would face problems due to ambiguous criteria, and the argument contains a fallacy of prioritized values. Furthermore, I believe research involving children is unacceptable because it is difficult to reflect the subjects’ consent, and there is a risk that children’s human rights could be violated.
I agree and acknowledge that research involving human subjects is necessary for human welfare and scientific advancement. What is crucial is that the subjects of such research must be selected through reasonable procedures and methods that everyone can accept, and they must not include convicts or children who are in a socially disadvantaged position. A more moral stance and a greater sense of ethical responsibility are required when conducting scientific experiments and research.
