As you may recall, in my discussion on the what Satan truly represents, I stated "Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-four, who, because of his 'divine spiritual and intellectual development,' has become the most vicious animal of all!"

Such can be seen in cases of murder, mayhem, and rape. As defined by Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, "murder" is "to kill inhumanly or barbarously", "mayhem" is "the act of intentionally mutilating a person's body or injuring it so as to deprive him of a limb or any organ of the body that he needs to defend or take care of himself", and "rape" is "having sexual intercourse forcibly and without consent". Granted that under certain circumstances, these crimes may be excused as being either "self-defense" or "an act of temporary insanity", these crimes are usually senseless and evil acts, counter-productive to the society of humans. These are acts that only humans could be found guilty of: Humans are brought up in a society that tells them it is wrong from the very beginning.

Furthermore, in nature, an animal only kills out of necessity, such as for food or self-defense, and mayhem and rape do NOT occur. In addition, animals if they are to do anything wrong against humans, they do it both without intent and without knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, and therefore could only be found innocent, if put to a fair trial for any of their actions.

While many may argue that animals can not reason, aside from this being irrelevant since neither can wrom food or dust, the state humans go to after death, this is a falsehood. There is a monkey (I forget what type) that fashions tools for eating. Another monkey, in Japan, has been known to wash its food in the sea before eating. Both of these show the ability to reason.

The dolphin can think 16 times as fast as humans, managing four and a half times as much information as a human can at any given time. Studies have shown that they carry on actual dialogue, communicating information with each other nine times as much information as humans in the same ammount of time. Further studies have shown that dolphins, which have been exposed to laboratories, can pick up human languages and speek them eight times faster than humans. A dolphin mother stays with its baby for the first 18 to 21 months of its life and it is speculated that in this time, the mother communicates the total sum of dolphin knowledge to the baby. Other studies have shown that dolphins do dream and may even have their own religions. This shows that humans are not as superior as they think they are.

Furthermore, there have been countless reports of dolphins and other animals risking their own lives to save humans. Then we betray their trust and kill them out of greed. Is this really a responsible actof a superior being?

Some may say that the act of the animal risking its life to save a human shows a lack of intelligence, and this may or may not be so, but it could also be a sign of a higher sense of morality in animals, further proving their deaths are not justified.

If animals can only be found as innocent, then it follows that anything that should effectively punish them, even if not meant as punishment, is inherently wrong and should not be done, i.e. using animals as "lab rats".

On the other hand, if a human is guilty, he should therefore be effectively punished, in a manner that not only would make him suffer, such as imprisonment or death, but also serve a purpose productive to the needs of mankind, as to make up for the counter-productive act he has committed, i.e. serving time as a "lab rat".

Next, many experiments done on animals are ones that have been done hundreds of times with results that are inconclusive and the dead horse, which is not really dead and may not even be a horse, is continuously beaten, not really for the furtherance of science, but simply to extort money from the government in the name of science. In fact, all results that come from animals are inconclusive and inevitably everything must be tested on humans anyway. For example, there are berries that are poisonous to humans but not to some species of birds which use them as food, showing that the effects of a substance on one animal may not be the same on another. If we relied on the bird as an indication that these berries were safe to market as food, then innocent people would be killed. Instead of taking innocent volunteers off the street and performing experiments which may later destroy or terminate their life, why not just use people who are guilty and who have proven that they are no longer worthy of possessing a life anyway?

Also, simple and effective cures may be overlooked simply because they would not work on an animal used for tests. Now, if, hypothetically, there was a fruit that would cure cancer in humans if eaten, but it poisoned rabbits, and we tested it on rabbits and all the rabbits died, we would miss out on a valuable resource, in the name of saving one that has proven itself valueless, all the while having murdered possibly thousands of innocent rabbits in the process and all for nothing.

I would like to add that being a "lab rat" is both a better punishment for and a better deterrent to crime. Instead of wasting space and food to house and feed people who have wronged against society and then have the same society foot the bill, that same space and food could be used to supply food and shelter to the homeless who have neither... when put in this context, it becomes apparent that imprisonment could be more of a reward than a deterrent... Why not turn the prisons into homeless shelters and eliminate the prisoners?

I am not suggesting that all prisoners should receive the death penalty. In fact, I am against giving the death penalty, at least not as such. Killing the inmates before they pay off their debt to society is also counter-productive and wasteful. Instead they should be used as "lab rats", such that their punishment is useful and should they die, it would not be in vain since scientists could learn from their deaths.

As a deterrent to crime, experimenting on criminals would be much more effective then any other. Would you willing risk getting caught committing a crime knowing the penalty would be your unwilling cooperation in AIDS or cancer research? Knowing that is the disease doesn't kill you or make you suffer unbearably, the experimental drugs might? Not knowing whether you will live or die, and if you live, what will be the quality or quantity of your remaining life? If you knew this would be the result and you got caught, how would you have any right to complain about the result? Would the killer, kill if society would use him for experiments in resuscitation? Would the maimer, main if society would use him for studies in organ regeneration? And would the rapist, rape if he would be used to study why, for thousands of years, countries in the Middle East have found that among their most trustworthy servants were the eunuchs?

As I have shown, while experimenting on animals is wrong and useless, experimenting on convicts is justifiable and beneficial.