Variation of Skald's killer/healer poll

This is based on Skald the Rhymer’s poll thread So this guy has the power to cure cancer, but there’s this tiny little problem….

One issue I saw there was that the killer/healer had already killed all his victims. The issue was whether his punishment for past crimes could be reduced for future healings. And I thought, “Why make it so simple?”

Simular situation: A serial killer with the power to heal people with cancer. Assume it’s under his voluntary control and he can’t be compelled to use it against his will.

But this guy really enjoys killing. So much so that he doesn’t want to stop. He states that the only way he will heal people is if he is allowed to keep on killing other people. He is willing to make some concessions: he will stop choosing his victims and let other people choose them. Specifically, he wants the state to allow him to execute other death row prisoners. As a bonus, he’s willing to forego the extended torture, mutilation, and cannibalism he prefers. He’ll just kill the condemned men as quickly and directly as other means of execution do. And he insists on a minimum of at least four deaths a year.

In exchange for being allowed to kill all of these people (who were going to be killed anyway) he will agree to use his healing powers as directed. Otherwise, he will heal nobody.

Reading through the OP, I was all set to vote “Yes” right up until the last sentence of the conditions.

I’m opposed to the death penalty, but given that it exists, I don’t much care which method is used. Might as well be this guy. I will not, however, agree to any terms which state that a given number of people must be killed each year; I want capital punishment gone, not mandated, and I don’t care what the likelihood is that the rate will actually drop below the prescribed limit.

I’m opposed to the death penalty, but given that it exists, I don’t much care which method is used. Might as well be this guy. I will not, however, agree to any terms which state that a given number of people must be killed each year; I want capital punishment gone, not mandated, and I don’t care that the current likelihood is that the number would (or wouldn’t) drop below the limit anyway. Yes, it’s tempting to agree on the rationale that more good than harm would be done, but operating on that sort of pragmatist ends-justify-the-means thinking is pretty much the antithesis of my belief system. Once you grant that evil in the name of good is acceptable provided the projection chart balances the right way, you open the doors for pretty much any authoritarian dystopic nightmare you can name.

So, no deal. Throw the bastard in a pit, do the minimum required to keep him alive and healthy, and let him rot until he changes his mind.

Wow, something wonky happened with that last edit. Ah well, you get the point.

Actually I put that one in there to avoid people trying to game the system. I didn’t want somebody saying “Ha ha, I’d fool him. I’d give him permission to execute all the death row prisoners in the country and then I’d abolish the death penalty.” And I didn’t want this getting side-tracked into a discussion about capital punishment.

So for the sake of argument, let’s just say that this issue will have no effect on the amount of capital punishment. The exact same number of people will be executed regardless of whether this guy kills them or somebody else does.

Oh. Well then, change my vote to “Yes” and edit the moral mini-rant accordingly. :smiley:

Nothing about this guy makes me like him any more the other guy.

Lock him in a high security lab. Perform tests on him for as long as necessary, then kill him and keep studying the carcass. Make sure to grab everything you need for future cloning.

Nope. It’s simple – killing, when not in the act of immediate self-defense, is flat-out wrong. I’ll never consider state-sanctioned killing as anything other than murder, and all this scenario does is change who the executioner is. Sorry, no sale.

However, while I’m utterly against official, state-sanctioned killing; I have no problem with this guy “vanishing” to some Area 51 government facility where they then follow the plan Gustav has laid out.

No. The justice system should not be available for bids, even if offered items or services of absolutely surpassing rareness and price. Having a mandatory amount of death sentences is completely immoral whether it’s four or four million, even if we weren’t doing it to receive something in return.

I’d tell him he could execute whatever Death Row people there were, nation wide. He would not be able to dictate number, period.

And then, I’d tell him that his options are simple: He agrees to my terms, and allows us to study him (while minimizing the pain to him) or we study him and forgo all painkillers and don’t care about the invasiveness of the procedures.

Again, this deal has no effect on how many people are executed. It’s the same amount regardless of whether you say yes or no. The only difference is how they are killed.

I’d comply. Whether or not I believe in the death penalty doesn’t change the law* and if those people are going to die, he might as well kill them so we can save more lives (and the lives of good people).

*I understand that I can petition lawmakers, etc. I’m talking purely my belief.