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.

Spetulhu wrote:
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?

Only if you can demonstrate that they're doing it for reasons of eugenics, and not reasons of child safety, misguided as they may be.

Spetulhu wrote:
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?

I mean, there's the whole "choice" aspect that makes it different....

You can argue that it's a "coerced choice," I suppose, but taking a plea deal is a choice nonetheless.

I wonder what attitudes would be were this discussion regarding a situation where thieves were offered the choice between having a hand they stole with cut off, and years in prison.

If it's a reasonable prison sentence for their crime? Or so unreasonable as to pressure them towards hand removal?

 daedalus wrote:
I wonder what attitudes would be were this discussion regarding a situation where thieves were offered the choice between having a hand they stole with cut off, and years in prison.

Do the thieves have a history of abusing their hands so that the appendage dies?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I wonder what attitudes would be were this discussion regarding a situation where thieves were offered the choice between having a hand they stole with cut off, and years in prison.

Do the thieves have a history of abusing their hands so that the appendage dies?

About as much as the abuse of ovaries cause a child to die.

 daedalus wrote:
About as much as the abuse of ovaries cause a child to die.

But acute mental illness, and a history of careless actions/substance abuse/child neglect can

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
About as much as the abuse of ovaries cause a child to die.

But acute mental illness, and a history of careless actions/substance abuse/child neglect can

Sounds like we should cut out the mental illness and history of careless actions/substance abuse/child neglect then.

I think that cutting off a hand in the US would run afoul of the 8th amendment, just as I think coerced sterilization would, or at least should. That's actually not a bad analogy, especially for hysterectomies.

What about the medical ethics of performing a procedure with no medical necessity?

This is wrong on several levels.

 daedalus wrote:
Sounds like we should cut out the mental illness and history of careless actions/substance abuse/child neglect then.

No disagreement here. What should be done in the event that the individual conceives a child with another before treatment is complete? What about cases where treatment is not possible?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Sounds like we should cut out the mental illness and history of careless actions/substance abuse/child neglect then.

No disagreement here. What should be done in the event that the individual conceives a child with another before treatment is complete? What about cases where treatment is not possible?

Those are the hard questions. I can't attempt rhetoric for that. :(

 Breotan wrote:
Here is my problem with all this. We too frequently hear of someone who's been let out of prison because DNA proved their innocence, key testimony was recanted, prosecutorial misconduct was discovered, etc. How do you undo a hysterectomy or castration in the case of a wrongful conviction? "Ooops, sorry." just isn't good enough.

While I agree that "Oops, Sorry" isn't good enough... in the last 100 years or so, how many convictions for Child Abuse or Child Neglect (the latter of which the woman in the OP was charged/accused of) have been overturned? I cannot fathom or dream of a situation where someone would say, "ohh.. new evidence has shown that you left your 2 month old child in the car for an hour, in 100 degree summer weather for a legitimate reason"


To me, this sort of punishment is EXTREMELY grey area... as others have pointed out, this is approaching eugenics territory, but at the same time what is the cost of a hysterectomy over 18+ years of state funding for a child living in gakky situations? Seriously, foster homes and the like can be that bad in the US, or there's juvenile detention for crimes that many of those children will commit; and "big prison" for those who continue to commit crimes after they are no longer cute little snotlings. In the situation presented in the OP, it would seem that in Tennessee this is quite rarely done.

 daedalus wrote:
I wonder what attitudes would be were this discussion regarding a situation where thieves were offered the choice between having a hand they stole with cut off, and years in prison.

They're still offered the choice?

The chick from Indiana is a perfect candidate.

Interesting: the prosecutor who was ultimately responsible for the plea deal was terminated from his job.

A statement from the DA's office said that it had nothing to do with the sterilization (Radners) case.


... not sure I believe that, but that's gut reaction. Guy could have been a terrible prosecutor for all i know. The timing of it certainly is suspect.