Namely, offering reduced sentences in exchange for submission to medical tests is the same thing as giving longer sentences to people who do not submit to medical tests; it only depends on your reference point. So, if people who commit armed robbery on average get 10 years behind bars (ignoring or counting parole in the average--doesn't matter in this example), and you offer 3 years commuted service for submission to medical tests, you've basically set up a system where people either:
1) Submit to tests and only have a 7 year sentence, or
2) Don't submit to tests and have a 10 year sentence
Since you're altering the parameters of an existing punishment as a "reward" for being a medical guinea pig, you're effectively punishing more harshly those people who don't submit to such tests.
EstLladon wrote:Well maybe not drug testing, but for example something good can come from blood drives in prison. If you pay your inmates with reducing their jailtime for like a week for a clean blood sample they will probably be willing to give blood. This can actually save lives. And the prisoners will be less likely to take drugs (don't they smuggle drugs into prisons? because I do not really know). Giving blood does not harm you significantly.
This suffers from the same problem as I cited above. In effect, it punishes those people who do not, or cannot, give blood. While on principle it seems pretty benign, in effect it would punish more severely people who can't donate blood (due to HIV/AIDS, iron-deficiency anemia, lycanthropy, etc.), and anyone who was simply unwilling to donate every month. KF