ForumGarden

I was reading the story: Ohio St.: Employee kills co-worker, then self COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new Ohio State University custodial employee who received a bad job evaluation shot two co-workers in a campus maintenance building, killing one of them, and then fatally shot himself, officials said Tuesday...

...Tuesday. Brown, 51, was pronounced dead at Ohio State University Medical Center several hours later, Denton said...Ohio St.: Employee kills co-worker, then self - Crime & courts- msnbc.com and came to what I think is a very interesting question.

Offenders that died/killed committing felony be used for Science/Healthcare?

My thinking is that they were to be going to prison, therefore they would then be owned by the state.

I also believe that science and healthcare is very important not only for extenuated research and development but for new students entering their respective fields.

I vote "Yes" all the way!

I'm starting to realize that the dead bodies would need to have a trial in order to establish guilt which would be essential in transferring the body...

None the less, we can all approach the question philosophically to come to an understanding of how people operate.

I've voted no although uncertain might have been more accurate.

At the end of the day, even though they're criminals, they have a family that will suffer if this is forced on them.

The family has committed no crime, should they be made to suffer?

I saw something on TV a while ago which said that the brain scans of serial killers was different to the brain scans of 'normal' people.

I don't know how true this is, but if there is a possibiltity then it would be worth scanning their brains and building up a database of information about them.

I've included a link which might help.

Serial Killers

(Note the name of the college in blue at the top!) :rolleyes:

Bryn Mawr;1295630 wrote: I've voted no although uncertain might have been more accurate.

At the end of the day, even though they're criminals, they have a family that will suffer if this is forced on them.

The family has committed no crime, should they be made to suffer?


I suppose that is true but I also understand they as well have an obligation to help society, and when applied to this logic one could agree that they owe the body to society by virtue of tort, or compensation for the loss imposed by the offender.

Bryn Mawr;1295630 wrote: I've voted no although uncertain might have been more accurate.

At the end of the day, even though they're criminals, they have a family that will suffer if this is forced on them.

The family has committed no crime, should they be made to suffer?


For the sake of curiosity would you be at all opposed to a signed release of the body to the state specifically for Science/Healthcare Research by the next of kin?

K.Snyder;1295640 wrote: For the sake of curiosity would you be at all opposed to a signed release of the body to the state specifically for Science/Healthcare Research by the next of kin?


Not at all.

I have already signed such a release for my own body and my family agree with that. It is the compulsion against the objection of the family that I find objectionable - the guy that committed the crime is dead, at that point you are punishing the innocent.

Bryn Mawr;1295661 wrote: - the guy that committed the crime is dead, at that point you are punishing the innocent.


:yh_laugh That's ironic considering I feel the same way when human bodies are in need for research and learning purposes yet serve no purpose in decaying six feet under or being "disintegrated", so to speak... :yh_wink

Then why on earth are you limiting this to "Offenders that died/killed committing felony"? Why not make it a general requirement of the entire population? If it's good for society that people have no ownership rights to their corpse then make it so. Why focus on a small subset of the available corpses? Why not just have an opt-out card for those who have, say, a religious or cultural objection?

spot;1295870 wrote: Then why on earth are you limiting this to "Offenders that died/killed committing felony"? Why not make it a general requirement of the entire population? By the very same logic of course this would be applied to the general public after a more justifiable means has been exercised. I'd suggest it outright but people in general aren't as compassionate and ironically enough it's due to religious beliefs. I myself will do it and I have nothing more than a speeding ticket or two on my record which I believe is only one if I were forced to guess and will be coming off soon at that.

spot;1295870 wrote:

If it's good for society that people have no ownership rights to their corpse then make it so. Why focus on a small subset of the available corpses? Why not just have an opt-out card for those who have, say, a religious or cultural objection?


Once the bodies start piling up beyond the subset facilities' ability to move their prongs fast enough then what would eventually serve as precedent is the very same "more justifiable means"...

As for religious people that feel they'd disgrace themselves and their religion:yh_eyerol by helping to insure the well being of future populations then I have to wonder what exactly it is that religion is serving a purpose for...Perhaps selfishness and vanity?

My sarcasm towards religion in my prior paragraph is only aimed at the context in which I'd used it. If someone's religion prevents them from helping people......

If everyone did donate their bodies to help scientific research and Healthcare then we wouldn't need such a piece of legislation.

You can have mine, I reckon the liver will be used up though.

YZGI;1295898 wrote: You can have mine, I reckon the liver will be used up though.


Very well then YZGI I'll hold you to that. I'll PM you and we can set up a time and day we can both go fill out the paper work to have our dead bodies donated to help Scientific Research and Healthcare!