The ethics department doesn't allow for human testing, however they allow for animal testing, and many scientists don't care who they test on as long as they can get an idea to work. They would test on themselves if that wouldn't result in the end of their lives and hence the end of their ideas. There was one a psychologist who tested on his own children and caused most of them to go insane.
Peta supporter I see. And probably a fanatical one.....
Alot of people hold human life mais valuable than animal life. And plus people do not always use animais to test. Criminals are making money for the state while they are in jail even though they cost the state money as well. I highly doubt people (mainly higher up people) would want it to stop.) Some of those sick-minded people can get help and then again some not necessarily. Plus the criminal's families will SUE them. Whereas it's a lower chance you'd be sued if you use an animal. Not everyone holds animal life the same as human lives.
If you truly wanna know why don't you do the research to solve your little conundrum?
well i dont see why the families would sue. If the relative was falsy convicted then i could see why, but I highly doubt many people get falsy convicted. People who do those kind of things deserve it!
Why treat criminals and twisted people like savages? I know that they've done bad and horrible things, but they're still people. They may not be right in the head, but there's still hope for them. They didn't do the evil deeds because they believed them to be evil. Or, at least, not without reason. Look, I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, I just don't completely agree with you. A lot of products aren't tested on animais anymore. I just don't think that forcing the tests on human beings isn't any better regardless of how "sick minded" they are.
