Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Actually, they are reversible procedures. So, the argument that it's permanent is false. Next. And..."doctor"?



Edit-I also totally accept that my opinion is not widely shared on this one. Actually, on this matter I view my opinions as fairly extreme and on the fringe. So I won't get beligerant when challenged on this.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Actually, they are reversible procedures. So, the argument that it's permanent is false. Next. And..."doctor"?

Is the method of tubal ligation that is reversible the most common, though?

I thought they typically snipped and cauterized?

Absent very unusual circumstances which are not punishment oriented I'm opposed to this as a matter of policy. frankly I'm becoming the same way in regards to capital punishment.

They aren't guaranteed to be reversible. Sometimes people have their tubes tied and they want it reversed but it's a gamble. You can't just switch back and forth without risk.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I'm sure there are those here who think this is a good idea.
But no. The right to reproduce and the right to your body not to be surgically altered without your consent is one the should not be messed with.

If the surgery is a consequence of a plea deal, then it's not being done without the person's consent.

I don't really have a huge problem with this, as long as it's only used as an alternative to other punishment with the person's consent.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Actually, they are reversible procedures. So, the argument that it's permanent is false. Next. And..."doctor"?



Edit-I also totally accept that my opinion is not widely shared on this one. Actually, on this matter I view my opinions as fairly extreme and on the fringe. So I won't get beligerant when challenged on this.

No no, lets stick with this "reversible procedures" argument. Lets not be moving on. How is a hysterectomy reversible?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Actually, they are reversible procedures. So, the argument that it's permanent is false. Next. And..."doctor"?



Edit-I also totally accept that my opinion is not widely shared on this one. Actually, on this matter I view my opinions as fairly extreme and on the fringe. So I won't get beligerant when challenged on this.

No no, lets stick with this "reversible procedures" argument. Lets not be moving on. How is a hysterectomy reversible?

Who said a hysterectomy was reversible?
In which instance did a hysterectomy take place?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No no, lets stick with this "reversible procedures" argument. Lets not be moving on. How is a hysterectomy reversible?

Obviously a hysterectomy wouldn't be, but a tubal ligation or vasectomy typically could be.... I've actually even had a friend who had to have his vasectomy re-done because, apparently, he's the goddamned Wolverine.

Regardless, I think these are very specifically being looked at in terms of plea deals, in which the person has a choice.

So they're hardly mandatory.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

No no, lets stick with this "reversible procedures" argument. Lets not be moving on. How is a hysterectomy reversible?

Obviously a hysterectomy wouldn't be, but a tubal ligation or vasectomy typically could be.... I've actually even had a friend who had to have his vasectomy re-done because, apparently, he's the goddamned Wolverine.

Ironically enough, if you have set enough, if can repair itself sometimes.

It is actually possible to repair itself. It's very rare. But it does happen. Despite the 'doctor' comment earlier, while I'm not one, my dad is. And he has mentioned having cases of repeat vasectomies because they repaired themselves. It's less than like 1 in a thousand chance, I believe, but that's my own guesstimate. Obviously, HIPPA related, he's never given details; just "I've had cases".

I like the idea, personally.

It isn't forced....it is offered.

It's a choice given to someone to lighten the punishment that they would otherwise be facing the full brunt of.

If you think you can beat the prosecutor because you are innocent (or guilty, but flimsy case against you), then you don't take the plea deal and have your day in court.

I absolutely have seen people that never, ever, should have had children to begin with, or allowed to continue having children that they take *zero* care of/interest in (and yet still maintain custody of...go figure).

 Frazzled wrote:
frankly I'm becoming the same way in regards to capital punishment.

Yeah, that's how I feel. I'm for it fort certain crimes ideologically, like in a vacuum, but in practice I'm against it because we seem to be wholly incapable of doing it in a professional and fair manner. Our legal system is just too jacked.

But that's another thread, anyway.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
frankly I'm becoming the same way in regards to capital punishment.

Yeah, that's how I feel. I'm for it fort certain crimes ideologically, like in a vacuum, but in practice I'm against it because we seem to be wholly incapable of doing it in a professional and fair manner. Our legal system is just too jacked.

But that's another thread, anyway.

Agreed, but also agree thats a separate thread.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can the children be removed from the parent(s) at such a young age if they are at risk? If so why did this not happen in some of these cases?

Yes to question 1, though the ultimate optimistic hope is that people will get their gak together and care for their children.

And because in most states family law (other than divorce, but really, that's not family law any longer anymore than probate is. They've more than "sort of" evolved into their entirely own arena's now) is a thankless, overworked, and underpaid arena of law supported by equally overworked and underpaid state advocates and social workers.

Things fall through the cracks probably more often than they should, and certainly more often than anyone who witnesses the aftermath would probably admit to when they witness it. Also, these people have to land on social services radar to begin with. It's hard to intervene if you never know about them in the first place or they are skipping town left and right. If they parent is the legal guardian and they go state skipping, there's no kidnapping, and the state they egressed from - their jurisdiction stops at the border (and there's 200 more cases for that attorney and the case worker she sees once a month).


As for forced sterilization... it's barbaric to hold the temptation of a lesser prison sentence on an adult in control of their faculties with sterilization (surgical or chemical) as a carrot. It's downright inhuman to do it to mentally challenged individuals. I personally find this disgusting and backward, and a throwback to the days of Eugenics.



EDIT: To the sub-tangent on capital punishment in the US, i would encourage everyone to read "The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies" by Hugo Adam Bedau. It's an extremely objective review of capital punishment. My copy is almost 20 years old, but my understanding is it's kept up to date. I have dozens of books on capital punishment in my law library from my criminal paralegal days ; this is hands down better than any three of them combined. Read it and make up your own mind which side of the fence you fall on. If nothing more you'll be armed with a lot of rock solid information and facts, rather than anecdotes, to support either position.

Yeah, that doesn't seem kosher. Don't get me wrong, if morons off themselves before they breed, that's fine, but it is not okay to make a plea agreement contingent upon sterilization.

I think I agree with Haight on forced sterilization. The carrot analogy really sums up my feelings on it.

I am firmly against offering this as a sentence reducer, let alone forcing it on criminals who aren't sexual predators.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If the surgery is a consequence of a plea deal, then it's not being done without the person's consent.

It isn't really "consent" if you're being coerced into doing it with the threat of additional time in prison if you don't agree. This isn't a plea bargain where sterilization makes sense as a punishment for the crime, it's the state turning the power advantage it has in plea bargaining into an opportunity for eugenics.

 Peregrine wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If the surgery is a consequence of a plea deal, then it's not being done without the person's consent.

It isn't really "consent" if you're being coerced into doing it with the threat of additional time in prison if you don't agree. This isn't a plea bargain where sterilization makes sense as a punishment for the crime, it's the state turning the power advantage it has in plea bargaining into an opportunity for eugenics.

Have an exalt. Concise and precise explanation of it, in my opinion.

"Sterilization as punishment" is something Hitler and Stalin would come up with.
Whenever I think I heard enough, and whenever I think it could not get worse, the "Land of the Free" still suprieses me with another .... I have no words for this.

My belief that I put forth before should only be if it fits the crime:

"Hi woman who murdered her two children and made the third help her hide the bodies. You're in prison for x years due to murdering your children. Clearly you have problems with being a mother, although you've lived the rest of your life without incident. You have two options: serve your full sentence, or have a court issued tube-tying that will prevent you from having more kids who you have a history of victimizing. The second option will cause a reduced sentence."

I think that's totally okay-but it should fit the crime. Don't sterilize a person for getting too many DUIs. What the hell should that accomplish?

That is my stance as well, I should have clarified: if it fits the crime and is appropriate.

Child molesters/pedophiles. Child murderers (insane or not). Certain heinous murderers (Dahmer would have fit that role for example).

 TheMeanDM wrote:
That is my stance as well, I should have clarified: if it fits the crime and is appropriate.

Child molesters/pedophiles. Child murderers (insane or not). Certain heinous murderers (Dahmer would have fit that role for example).

I think I'm in Ouze's camp in this... our Judicial System (primarily the Incarceration System) is so jacked, I don't really trust it...

In that case, we should I be against this, at least until after the Judicial/Incarceration System is reformed.

I think there's a place for sterilization, multiple children removed from your care, sexual abuse of a child...

Here in the UK, I thought idea of the loss of child support for 3rd child and onwards had its merits, although I guess something like this would come a bit further down the road..

Sterilization as a requirement to get a plea bargain? Doesn't sound too good to me, but then I've read about how young single mothers (or orphan girls from poor circumstances) could be treated in countries not too far away. The state would agree to let you out of the institution where they had put you, but only if you "agreed" to sterilization (which you might not even be educated enough to recognize as a term). It was for the best anyway - a poor orphan or single mother was obviously inferior and shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Besides, if the crime in question isn't one where sterilization is a possible punishment... How can anyone think it's right to have it as part of a plea? Can you actually be sentenced to surgery in a crime case?

 Peregrine wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
If the surgery is a consequence of a plea deal, then it's not being done without the person's consent.

It isn't really "consent" if you're being coerced into doing it with the threat of additional time in prison if you don't agree. This isn't a plea bargain where sterilization makes sense as a punishment for the crime, it's the state turning the power advantage it has in plea bargaining into an opportunity for eugenics.

You're looking at it from the wrong end - they aren't threatened with MORE prison time if they fail to submit, the sterilization is merely a condition for the REDUCTION in their sentences. In order to prove your eugenics hypothesis, you need to produce data that genetically similar groups of people are being specifically targeted with the goal of changing natural selection pressures.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In order to prove your eugenics hypothesis, you need to produce data that genetically similar groups of people are being specifically targeted with the goal of doctoring natural genetic variability.

Isn't removing "inferior" people from the breeding pool eugenics at it's finest? Low income, low education, criminal background... Just the people the doctor said should be weeded out.

Spetulhu wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In order to prove your eugenics hypothesis, you need to produce data that genetically similar groups of people are being specifically targeted with the goal of doctoring natural genetic variability.

Isn't removing "inferior" people from the breeding pool eugenics at it's finest? Low income, low education, criminal background... Just the people the doctor said should be weeded out.

You might consider people on your ignore list to be "inferior" as well, but there's no evidence that they are genetically related to sex criminals in any way.

One of the main fallacies of the eugenics movement was their theory that poverty had a genetic basis. They went as far as doctoring images of the poor to indicate some kind of phenotype associated with their socioeconomic status.

example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kallikak_Family

Point is, sterilization is being used on criminals even if there's no reason to (and it wouldn't be legally possible to order it without "consent"). Isn't that a good example of authorities using their power to do just what those fallacious eugenics researchers were going on about?