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.
NASHVILLE — Nashville prosecutors have made sterilization of women part of plea negotiations at least four times in the past five years, and the district attorney has banned his staff from using the invasive surgery as a bargaining chip after the latest case.
In the most recent case, first reported by The Tennessean, a woman with a 20-year history of mental illness had been charged with neglect after her 5-day-old baby died mysteriously. Her defense attorney says the prosecutor assigned to the case wouldn’t go forward with a plea deal to keep the woman out of prison unless she had the surgery.
Defense attorneys say there have been at least three similar cases in the past five years, suggesting the practice may not be as rare as people think and may happen more often outside the public view and without the blessing of a court.
Sterilization coerced by the legal system evokes a dark time in America, when minorities, the poor, and those deemed mentally unfit or ‘‘deficient’’ were forced to undergo medical procedures that prevented them from having children.
‘‘The history of sterilization in this country is that it is applied to the most despised people — criminals and the people we’re most afraid of, the mentally ill — and the one thing that these two groups usually share is that they are the most poor. That is what we’ve done in the past, and that’s a good reason not to do it now,’’ said Paul Lombardo, a law professor and historian who teaches at Georgia State University.
Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk agrees. A former defense attorney who took over the office in September, he recently ordered lawyers in his office not to seek sterilization by defendants. He said he hadn’t heard of it happening before but didn’t ask.
Funk said people could be ordered to stay away from children, and the state wouldn’t have to resort to such invasive measures.
‘‘The bottom line is the government can’t be ordering a forced sterilization,’’ Funk said.
However, such deals do happen.
In West Virginia, a 21-year-old unmarried mother of three agreed to have her tubes tied in 2009 as part of her probation after she pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
And last year, a Virginia man who fathered children with several women agreed to undergo a vasectomy in exchange for less prison time in a child endangerment case.
Forced sterilization came up in a different way in California last year, when Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that banned state prisons from forcing female inmates to be sterilized.
The law was pushed through after the Center for Investigative Reporting found that nearly 150 female prisoners had been sterilized between 2006 and 2010. An audit found that the state failed to make sure the inmate’s consent was lawfully obtained in every case.
The most recent Nashville case involved Jasmine Randers, 36, who had been under court supervision for mental illness when she left her home state of Minnesota. She gave birth in West Memphis, Ark., then fled a homeless shelter to come to Nashville, said her attorney, Mary-Kathryn Harcombe.
Court records show Randers reported awakening in a motel in Nashville, where she’d slept in a bed with the baby, only to find the child unresponsive. She reportedly called a taxi two hours later and took the child to a local hospital, where the infant was pronounced dead.
There was no sign of injury, and the cause of death was undetermined.
I would say I'm equal parts surprised this still happens - I thought we'd stopped doing this sort of thing years ago - and disgusted.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
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?
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.
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.
So is agreeing to it as part of a plea deal still surgical alteration without consent?
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.
So is agreeing to it as part of a plea deal still surgical alteration without consent?
It does result from people being pressured to make a deal though even if you don't think it counts as 'coercion'. According to that article a 21 year old woman agreed to be sterilised when making a plea deal over trying to sell weed. That shouldn't be an offence nearly serious enough that the authorities should be suggesting that sort of punishment as a deal. But then the US has a massive stick up its ass about drugs - as if people selling weed might as well be hardened violent criminals.
Yeah, I don't see this as some terrible thing when used as part of a plea deal. You don't have to take the plea if your reproductive rights are that near and dear to you, and I think that there are probably cases where it's the right call. Not a ton of information in the article and it's pretty slanted. I don't think that 'three similar cases in five years' is really worth getting all up in arms and outraged about, either.
If someone running a prison or whatever is forcibly sterilizing inmates without their consent, of course that's reprehensible.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It does result from people being pressured to make a deal though even if you don't think it counts as 'coercion'.
It does not meet the legal standard for coercion.
Howard A Treesong wrote: According to that article a 21 year old woman agreed to be sterilised when making a plea deal over trying to sell weed. That shouldn't be an offence nearly serious enough that the authorities should be suggesting that sort of punishment as a deal. But then the US has a massive stick up its ass about drugs - as if people selling weed might as well be hardened violent criminals.
That case is one I would like to know more about. All the others concern cases where a child's welfare was at stake. I'm not trying to argue it was right to offer sterilization, just wondering the rationale (although this isn't the first terrible legal solution offered in the War on Drugs).
This is disgusting. Plea deals are an integral part of our system, and requiring people to undergo a medical procedure that will forever change them is reprehensible.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I remember seeing a case on the news where some man on welfare was accused of non support by several women(also on welfare)because he would take no part in supporting any of his multitudes of children.
I recall the judge wanted to sentence him to sterilization and his defense was that he had the right to spread his seed.
I'm betting a quick google search might turn up more cases like this than we would believe possible.
Co'tor Shas wrote: This is disgusting. Plea deals are an integral part of our system, and requiring people to undergo a medical procedure that will forever change them is reprehensible.
But....I thought they had the option of turning down said plea deal?
The Devil's Advocate part of me says yeah, you can always turn down the plea deal and do the freaking time you stuck yourself with.
But it's also about halfway down a slippery slope.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Co'tor Shas wrote: This is disgusting. Plea deals are an integral part of our system, and requiring people to undergo a medical procedure that will forever change them is reprehensible.
But....I thought they had the option of turning down said plea deal?
Maybe I'm wrong.
Sure they do. But, of course, that is not the argument. It is whether or not prosecutors should be able to make this deal and if it is ethical in any way.
I hope this helped!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 04:35:41
1) Is the State, as a legal punishment, allowed to surgically sterilize criminals.
2) If yes/no, is the State allowed to require surgical sterilization as a punishment even if it is "voluntary".
Don't get me wrong, some people should absolutely never ever have kids, but this seems wrong. I don't think allowing someone a lighter sentence in exchange for sterilization helps in any way.
I wouldn't say the practice disgusts me, but I don't see the long term effect of it rehabilitating or reintegrating citizens back into society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: This is disgusting. Plea deals are an integral part of our system, and requiring people to undergo a medical procedure that will forever change them is reprehensible.
So plea bargains for lighter sentences are integral to our legal system? Please explain. I would argue right to fair trial is more integral than plea deals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 04:59:44
Is the state required to care for any and all offspring she may choose to have as "her right" even if she is mentally unfit to do so as she has demonstrated?
Either you want to pay to enable these people, through taxes, or you discourage the behaviour.
It's being against policies like this and supportive of welfare that encourages the worst people to have a plethora of kids.
Have a smaller state and this wouldn't even be an issue.
Co'tor Shas wrote: This is disgusting. Plea deals are an integral part of our system, and requiring people to undergo a medical procedure that will forever change them is reprehensible.
So plea bargains for lighter sentences are integral to our legal system? Please explain. I would argue right to fair trial is more integral than plea deals.
I agree, but plea bargains are a very big part of our system now. It's much cheaper for the state, so they really push it.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 08:19:08
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.
I think typically you give them a couple hundred thousand and remind them to thank whatever lucky star they wished upon that they're not still in prison.
... ... so ... I won't move this to nuts & bolts then.
Thanks for the idea, might be a bit hard to implement but we'll see what we can do.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Basically she is being offered this because the judge (who is not in any professional position to decide this) has decided that this woman should not have children because she has mental health problems. That is deeply wrong. Personally I am against plea bargains anyway, they encourage people to plead guilty and are not based on the person being innocent or guilty, but on how much the police and court can make a person think they are going to be found guilty regardless of actually facts.
How about introducing the practice of some middle eastern countries? Cut of a thieves hand (as part of a plea bargain of course), then they won't be able to steal as easerly. It is just as destructive but at least it has a relationship to to the crime.
Medium of Death wrote: Is the state required to care for any and all offspring she may choose to have as "her right" even if she is mentally unfit to do so as she has demonstrated?
If the state choses to remove the children, that is the states choice and the choice of the wider public to pay for that. It is possible that this woman has a mental health problem that can be treated. Many countries had policies of sterilizing people the state viewed as "unfit", including minorities, mentally ill, disabled, LGBT, often under the justification of being a burden on the state. Disability and mental illness have included such minor things as bi-poler and colour blindness.
This isn't to say that the state should never ever sterilize someone. There was a horrible case earlier this year of a woman in the UK with profound learning difficulties. She had six children already, non of whome she was capable of looking after, and could not understand how she had got pregnant. Her and her partners learning difficulties were such that they did not understand that sex=children, and it was likely that any further pregnancy would result in her death and the death of the child:
A mother of six with an IQ of 70 should be sterilised for her own safety, the Court of Protection has ruled.
The Court heard that a further pregnancy would be a "significantly life-threatening event" for both the mother and child.
Mr Justice Cobb said the woman had the "same human rights" as everyone else and this was not a case of "eugenics".
He has authorised health and council services to intervene and perform the sterilisation.
The name of the woman has not been released, to protect the identify of her children.
The Court of Protection, which rules in cases when people are unable to make decisions for themselves, heard the woman has no contact with any of her six children. All are being raised by carers.
The 36-year-old's history was described as "extraordinary, tragic, and complex".
Two of the children were born at home in conditions described as "unhygienic and overrun by pets".
There is evidence that barbecue tongs were used as forceps, although this was denied.
In another birth, the woman - known only as DD - contested there was no father and the pregnancy resulted from a "tablet from a health food shop".
Safety
Mr Cobb's judgement said: "The ethical, legal and medical issues arising here are self-evidently of the utmost gravity, engaging, and profoundly impacting upon DD's personal autonomy, privacy, bodily integrity, and reproductive rights."
It said there were considerable concerns about the woman's safety.
Doctors said the wall of her uterus was "tissue-paper thin" and likely to rupture in childbirth, leading to almost certain death of the infant.
Mr Cobb insisted: "Those who lack capacity have the same human rights as everyone else.
"This case is not about eugenics, this outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event."
He has authorised a sterilisation operation, but there will be no notice given to the woman or her long-term partner, who also has learning disabilities.
Rebecca Schiller, the co-chairwoman of the human rights in childbirth charity Birthrights, said: "Taking away a person's ability to have a child is truly draconian.
"It may be justified in extreme circumstances, but immense care must be taken to safeguard the rights of people with mental health conditions."
But that is not the same as this case at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 09:02:27
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Another hot button topic, but I'm not siding with the Angels on this one. I think it's a good idea. Woman with serious mental complications is highly suspect of having killed her 5-day old child? It sounds like she's likely incapable of caring for a child. If she's offered the plea option of sterilization, it sounds like a good thing-future children won't suffer under her "care". They aren't forcing sterilization, they're offering it as an option to get a lighter sentence. I think it's more than fair. The people involved still have freedom of choice.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Its problematic if the woman doesnt have the mental capacity to see what her choice means though. Maybe a depot contraceptive might be a better idea? Itd allow the affected person to have children under controlled conditions, its (sort of) reversible. Surgery isnt. And even then, it should only be an option if there is no other choice, if the woman in question cant be trusted to not harm her children.
Sterilization as a punishment for selling weed though? Thats just abominable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 15:49:05
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.
Well put.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
timetowaste85 wrote: Another hot button topic, but I'm not siding with the Angels on this one. I think it's a good idea. Woman with serious mental complications is highly suspect of having killed her 5-day old child? It sounds like she's likely incapable of caring for a child. If she's offered the plea option of sterilization, it sounds like a good thing-future children won't suffer under her "care". They aren't forcing sterilization, they're offering it as an option to get a lighter sentence. I think it's more than fair. The people involved still have freedom of choice.
The doctor has spoken. Thread over.
Because disease is completly incurable, and punishment for getting sick should be an irreversible procedure. Why not just push for full lobotomy while you're at it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/30 16:21:23
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
Even putting aside how troubling I find this just in terms of how the state is relating to individuals here, this sort of thing is brushing just a bit too close eugenics for me to be remotely close to OK with it. I don't like the state being in the habit of revoking people's capacity to reproduce. I don't want Uncle Sam poking around in anyone's britches, especially when he's holding a knife.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/03/30 16:29:59
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
~1.5k
