He's still serving his sentence, right? At least he's being useful as a guinea pig. Maybe it's selfish, but at least it's data that will help the next person.

Frankly, I could care less what the family thinks. If they feel so strongly, then they should advocate for some legislative change. Most families would kill if given the option, and also the luxury of having someone else do it for them.

Doesn't sound like it, it was 24 years ago according to the article, and they had a ten year sentence.

Right, he injured someone and shortened that person's life, but the justice system didn't know about that last part until long after he was sentenced. So it's not surprising that he's been out for a long time.

I mean it doesn't affect the time they did.

34 years

> Ugh PETA, always have to butt in just to keep themselves relevant.

This is literally what they are all about. It's like complaining that the IOC keeps whining about athlete doping just to try to stay relevant.

I originally downvoted you but then removed the downvote since what you write is correct and not trollish.

That said I have though about it more than once, simulation in the head style and a world were PETA wins turns in to a uglier world in most cases.

Note: this is specifically about PETA, some other animal rights/welfare organizations are somewhat reasonable.

[deleted because I didn't articulate this well]

Punishing someone for a crime is the responsibility of the justice system. You are saying hospital administrators should basically be able to hand out death sentences at their discretion, which is a bizarre line of thought.

> to me it honestly seems pretty reasonable if hospitals were to lower the priority of people who've been convicted of serious, deliberate violent offenses (where "serious" can be rigorously defined based on charges/sentences), given the very limited supply and high demand. Perhaps even restrict it to cases where the victim died, like this one.

Why would anyone want to add complexity to triage would be my knee jerk wonder, it’s supposed to be a quick process

Would the hospital need to wait for the legal system to get back to them before treatment can begin? How would you know if the patient has committed a crime without waiting?

How would you ever remove human bias from such a system? This is a non-starter.

Right, imagine someone convicted of possession of marijuana. There are still plenty of people who consider marijuana on par with hard drugs and serious crime. In their eyes, someone convicted of possession may as well be on par with murderers.

For the record, my original comment before I deleted it was exclusively referring to cases of deliberate violent crimes, with a caveat that it should probably be restricted to just homicide.