Should convicted criminals be allowed to publish scientific papers and obtain patents?

Yes.

Being criminal does not preclude you from having an original or useful idea that may benefit society.

You may not be at liberty  to travel to conferences to deliver seminars etc if you are seen as a danger to society, but apart from that no probs.

The only time there may be an issue, and not always even then,  may be situations where the particular criminality and specialist knowledge overlap.

There may be a case for tighter peer review sometimes. However I'd have no issues on a paper on code breaking being written by someone who had served time for code breaking, or a paper on poisons being written by a poisoner for example.


Mike.

Many criminals already have published. We can often learn from their experiences or insights. I consider much modern soap opera type material available nowadays to be junk and it is "criminal" to publish it.


Regarding scientific papers and other useful material, I  say yes, convicted criminals should be at liberty to publish such material.


Also, any inventor should be able to patent their invention.


Z.

Convicted may not mean guilty.

25 Wrongly-Convicted Felons Exonerated By New Forensic Evidence » (forensicsciencetechnician.net)



Z.

Yes, because human rights and free speech.  A conviction for littering shouldn't mean you're not allowed to publish anything again, ever.  Otherwise, it becomes a way to silence anyone the authorities don't like.


Yes, because you don't promote science and the arts by silencing people for arbitrary and unrelated reasons.  Someone may have a brilliant ides, but if they are not allowed to do anything with it, nobody will ever know.

Yes. Having committed a crime doesn't automatically invalidate any scientific or innovative contribution you are able to make.


The possible exception is as Mike says, where the criminal was convicted for something about which they are intending to publish, especially in fraud or misconduct type cases.

Yes.


The aim should be to rehabilitate criminals. A spell in prison may be necessary if the public need to be protected, but the longer aim should be to encourage criminals to seek a life where they make a contribution to society, which to a degree compensates for the costs involved in operating courts, prisons, etc. Give the a chance to redeem themselves.

Just because a person is a criminal (depending on what type of crime they committed) doesn’t automatically make them a bad person who has no worth in life, maybe they were failed earlier in life and unfortunately made mistakes, which took them down the wrong path, clearly if they are writing scientific papers then they are clearly intelligent, and probably never had the chances that others were luckier to have. And shouldn’t people be given a second chance in life. Some reformed criminals have gone on to help different sectors in life improve on products, ie security for instance.