Ethics Of Prisoners

The art of medicine and curing diseases was not always approached in a scientific way. In fact, many advances occurred between 1919 to 1939, after technological advances allowed scientists to apply the scientific method to medical research. At this time, the ethics of using patients as test subjects either for new medicines or as samples for further testing were not considered. An extreme example of this was the Nazi’s using concentration camp inmates – including children – to run painful and invasive experiments. More modern examples are not so easy to identify as unethical, however. While amputating a leg to develop methods to deal with fractures and war wounds is obviously unethical, harvesting cells to develop a vaccine is not so clear cut, as the disadvantage to the patient is hard to identify. Coming from the various Nazi testing and especially the Nuremberg testing and trials, another code of ethics was developed, called the Nuremberg Code.

They wore them down by the antics I mentioned above and I think the prisoners also came to the realization that there is nothing that can do to change their situation they have no authority or control. Although his experiment was viewed as controversial and iconic. I cannot in any way, shape or form justify a research permissible within the current ACJS ethical standards. I don’t believe any experiments could top the Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. How could you replicate or create an experiment similar to this one if there was no rules or guidelines to adhere by? By having no rules or guidelines is what made this experiment one of a kind and unique. Even by the ACJS ethical standards applied in my eyes, I still view it as unjust and unethical. I don’t believe that these standards should be altered so as to permit this type of research. I believe experiments like this have no place in Psychology. Despite the punishment, the individuals

According to the federal regulations, which of the following studies meets the definition of research with human subjects?

Although prisoners give consent, I don’t believe many are voluntarily giving consent, but are being forced to or being persuaded into giving consent since they have free time and require little compensation (Nelson Merz, 69). I do not believe it is right to make a prisoner do something he does not want to do just because there is a subject needed for research. Also, prisoners may give consent to have a little freedom from their everyday environment. “Special concerns arose in the aftermath of Nazi medical experiments during World War II, which resulted in the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki” (Raab). The Nuremburg Code was brought upon to protect the prisoner subjects from harm and to give them protection from being forced to consent in research. It also protects prisoners from being a population that is turned to for experimental subjects in research. The poor population will easily give consent to a research experiment because they will easily get money due to their voluntary role in the experiment. Although the money compensation sounds great to the unfortunate populations, there is no concern, other than money, or thought put into the overall experiment outcomes. They participate in the research, but do not take into consideration the down side effect it may cause. During a research, there are many people who did not know that giving consent to a research also meant that

Hypothesis/Working Thesis: Considering the reduced liabilities, rights, and public outreach of prisoners in the past, using prisoners as test rats was viewed as highly unethical and forceful by many.

I agree in the fact that we should have experiments in prisons but they should be voluntary experiments. Prisoners are human beings and should be treated as such. I do not side with Cohen’s opinion that the custodial institution should be able to force an inmate into an experiment. If the experiment is ethical and follows all of the guidelines A and B that Cohen has provided in his article I do not find a problem with inmates taking advantage to help themselves as well as the greater good by participating in a medical experiment. Every human being has the capability to make their own choices in life as long as they are mentally competent. Prison is seen as a controlled environment where many inmates are willing to participate in anything that is going to benefit them financially or get them one step closer to freedom. Prison life is strenuous and endless, having the opportunity to be apart of something that has benefits attached is big for an inmate. The factors of prison encourage the inmates to want to participate in something beneficial but in the end it is their sole decision to make in order to be included in proper

There have been questions about the morals and ethics behind prisoner research for a long time. Laws were even made to restrict and prevent research on prisoners. An example of such laws is the Nuremburg code which was made because of inhumane research being conducted in concentration camps during WWII. Prisoners are now considered a vulnerable population and research is extremely restricted because of this. Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to participate in scientific research because they can be manipulated, it can be dangerous, and they aren't educated/smart enough to comprehend the tests being conducted.

Ethical dilemmas are one of the many sensitive issues that come with doing psychological research with human participants. As seen in several famous psychology studies such as the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, and Tuskegee experiment, ethics in psychological studies are important to protect both the individuals being subjected to research and the researcher. While these specific experiments did not include children, it does bring up an important conversation regarding ethics in research. There are several guidelines put in place by the American Psychological Association to protect humans during research. However, special considerations and guidelines are put into place when working with

The ethical treatment of prisoners is a surprisingly contentious topic, considering how much is known about the conditions and contexts in which human beings function optimally, both physically and mentally. However, ethical discussions frequently have very little to do with what best allows human beings to thrive and function, but instead concern themselves with formulating rules and standards of acceptable behavior, usually out of the mistaken belief that these rules or standards represent some kind of objective, universal ethics. A problem arises when dealing with prisoners, because in many people's minds, the crime or offense of which a prisoner is accused warrants the denial of a certain subset of their rights, but there is not universal acceptance of which rights may be denied and to what extent, due to a disconnect between different modes of ethical thought. Believing in objective, universal ethical standards actually means that anything is justifiable; because these imagined objective standards do not actually exist, people are free to imagine them however they see fit. More utilitarian ethics rooted in conceptions of the social contract are far more useful for determining social policy, because they do not purport to represent objective ethical standards; rather, they acknowledge that ethics and morality are socially constructed, and as such they seek to rationally determine the best practices for achieving any particular goal. By examining two especially

Ethics, or sometimes referred to as "moral philosophy" is the discipline which studies questions of what is right and what is wrong. When one is involved in the study of right and wrong, it is inevitable that one will be forced to make a choice between the two, and assign this choice to actions and behavior. When discussing the ethical treatment of prisoners, one is forced to decide what is right and what is wrong, not only for the prisoners involved, but for society in general. One theory of punishment is called the "utilitarian" philosophy, and generally assumes that whatever is best for society in general is the best course of action. The idea of utilitarianism, when applied to the criminal justice system can benefit those involved because what is best for society is an ethical question, one that must be answered within the bounds of ethics. This means that ethics must be applied to the question of the treatment of prisoners, and therefore can ensure that prisoners will be treated decently by society.

states have banned research in prisons partially due to the difficulty of obtaining prisoner’s consent (189). He points out that prisoners come from a diverse cultural background, causing difficulties with language and understanding (190). Karen Lebacqz questions whether researchers specifically chose prisoners as subjects for “risky research” or whether the “mental, cultural or language barriers” caused them to overlook informed consent (1). John Arnold, Daniel Matin, Sarah Boyer also point out that the technical language in prison also intensifies problems with informed consent (463). Problems such as serious illness also make subjects less capable of giving informed consent, especially since they are also susceptible to possible coercion, which is one of the biggest barriers to informed consent (McDerott 12). McDerott advises that people with life at high risk should not be included in research

Ethics are a big part of research, in order for research to be conducted and the findings be used then they must follow ethics set by the Ethics committee. Ethics are a set of rules and rights. The rules must be followed by the researchers and the rights are for the participants. All participants must fully consent to the research and if they are too young then a guardian must consent for them. The participants’ information must be kept confidential and they can opt out of any parts of the research that they are uncomfortable completing.

In this scenario the corrections officer broke a few codes of ethics under the American Correctional Association. The first code that was broken was when he slapped the inmate because a correctional officer is to protect the civil and legal rights of all individual. Therefore, when he put his hands on the inmate he was not protecting the inmate’s right of being protected. Furthermore, he did not carry his self in a professional manner during the situation he was placed in because of his personal problem. There is also the issue of respect for the inmate’s safety, health, and free from harassment part of the code of ethic that was violated. Now the reason this part was violate is because he hit the hit and he knew that the inmate could not hit him back without having other correctional officers coming in to help him without knowing the situation. Therefore, the inmate could have been hurt really bad. There is also the harassment part because the inmate could face harassment from other inmates because of what happen

The Nuremberg Doctors Trial of 1946 is the preeminent case recognizing the importance of medical ethics and human rights specifically about human research subjects. The defendants in the trials include Nazi leadership, physicians, and investigators prosecuted for conducting unethical and inhumane medical experiments on civilians and prisoners of war resulting in extreme pain, suffering, permanent injury and often death. The Nuremberg Code, borne of these trials, establishes ethical guidelines for human experimentation to ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Herein, this writer will first identify and discuss ethical dilemmas presented in the Nuremberg case followed by three

The ethical theory of utilitarianism and the perspective on relativism, of prison labor along with the relativism on criminal behavior of individuals incarcerated are two issues that need to be addressed. Does the utilitarianism of prisoner’s right laws actually protect them? Or are the unethical actions of the international and states right laws exploiting the prison labor? Unethical procedures that impact incarcerated individuals and correctional staff, the relativism of respect as people and not just prisoner’s; the safety of all inmates and correctional staff, are all issues worth continuous reflection.