Non-human animal testing...

But he is not innocent. That is a fact. There are no two ways about it. People had a chance to argue that he is innocent, however he was given a fair trial judged by his peers, who have found him guilty.

He is not 60% guilty, or 75% guilty. He is just guilty, it's not a gradient of guilt, you either are guilty, or are not. Saying that some people can be tested on while some can't because someone is possibly less guilty than someone else, means that you are doubting that that someone should be in prison in the first place, and if you are doubting he should be in prison, then he should not be in prison. No one in an official capacity could ever admit that someone may in fact be innocent, as that would undermine the whole system. Therefore everyone that is in prison is equally guilty.

If one person decides his fate he is 100% guilty or not guilty. But in a jury of ten whereby 6 believe him guilty and 4; innocent. He is 60% guilty and 40% innocent in the eyes of the court. Majority rules, unless there is reasonable doubt in the eyes of the judge.

To think that EVERYONE in jail is guilty is naive. The law system is one of the most corrupt on the planet. Yes, the majority are guilty. But some will be innocent. As proven 'miscarriage of justice cases'- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases

Therefore unless there is 100% guilt, and not a single voice opposing otherwise the person should not be tested on, because quite frankly, the suffering those animals go through is worse than death and should be reserved for the worst of the worst. This is my opinon.