"Voluntary" sterilization and sentencing

[Benuty]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/21/judge-to-inmates-get-sterilized-and-ill-shave-off-jail-time/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.4ad1f70ebafd

According to this page, a judge in Tennessee has been offering reduced jail time (30 days) to repeat offenders should they volunteer to have themselves get a vasectomy if male or a hormonal implant if female (which is far less permanent) free of charge. This is done to supposedly make it so that these inmates do not end up needing to pay things like child support after being unable to get jobs due to their drug conviction; it is supposed to allow these individuals a chance to "make something of themselves." Tennessee has been facing a serious drug epidemic.

To me this seems illogical, immoral, and likely unconstitutional. It is illogical in that those who already have children already likely have to pay for that child one way or another (either by being a parent or through child support) and so those people are not helped at all. It is immoral in the same way that requesting for testing of drugs on inmates is immoral even with the inmates volunteering, that would be that inmates are in a reduced capacity to consent due to them being in the power of the state. Finally it seems to me that this might fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" though it is supposed to act as a reward (they where already punished and this reduces the punishment).Oh and of course, this doesn't do a thing about the drug problem Tennessee is already facing.

Anyway what think you NSG?

edit: as a note when the article says General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield, it means that his judgeship is in general sessions, it has nothing to do with the person Jeff Sessions.

What criminal would take this offer?

A desperate one maybe?

[Great Minarchistan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/21/judge-to-inmates-get-sterilized-and-ill-shave-off-jail-time/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-national%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.4ad1f70ebafd

According to this page, a judge in Tennessee has been offering reduced jail time (30 days) to repeat offenders should they volunteer to have themselves get a vasectomy if male or a hormonal implant if female (which is far less permanent) free of charge. This is done to supposedly make it so that these inmates do not end up needing to pay things like child support after being unable to get jobs due to their drug conviction; it is supposed to allow these individuals a chance to "make something of themselves." Tennessee has been facing a serious drug epidemic.

To me this seems illogical, immoral, and likely unconstitutional. It is illogical in that those who already have children already likely have to pay for that child one way or another (either by being a parent or through child support) and so those people are not helped at all. It is immoral in the same way that requesting for testing of drugs on inmates is immoral even with the inmates volunteering, that would be that inmates are in a reduced capacity to consent due to them being in the power of the state. Finally it seems to me that this might fall under "cruel and unusual punishment" though it is supposed to act as a reward (they where already punished and this reduces the punishment).Oh and of course, this doesn't do a thing about the drug problem Tennessee is already facing.

Anyway what think you NSG?

edit: as a note when the article says General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield, it means that his judgeship is in general sessions, it has nothing to do with the person Jeff Sessions.

What criminal would take this offer?

Personally if I were sentenced to 10, 15 years or more, I'd take the offer instantly. It's not like I can't reverse the procedure once I'm free.

P.S.: 30 days less or 30 days to be free? Because if it's the former, forget what I said above.

[Zottistan]

It might be better for the species if people who were willing to permanently sacrifice their fertility for the sake of thirty days stopped passing on genetic material.

[Neutraligon]

It might be better for the species if people who were willing to permanently sacrifice their fertility for the sake of thirty days stopped passing on genetic material.

Since the women are not sacrificing their fertility permanently I fail to see why that would be a good thing. As to the men, that 30 days in jail can have a rather big effect on the family members of that person. What if the person in jail is the primary breadwinner for the family (this despite them having a conviction)?

[Pope Joan]

Isn't that literally the form of Eugenics people used to advocate back in the 18th/19th century when it hadn't shifted to "race" yet?

Yeah. W.E.B. DuBois and Margaret Sanger were notable advocates.

[Zottistan]

It might be better for the species if people who were willing to permanently sacrifice their fertility for the sake of thirty days stopped passing on genetic material.

Since the women are not sacrificing their fertility permanently I fail to see why that would be a good thing. As to the men, that 30 days in jail can have a rather big effect on the family members of that person. What if the person in jail is the primary breadwinner for the family (this despite them having a conviction)?

In more down-to-earth terms, it would make a lot more sense and would probably be cheaper to just provide them with contraceptives, although I see no issue at all with putting the women on reasonably long term contraceptives. Those things usually last a year or so, right? I don't see many men taking this option though, and if they did they'd be foolish.

The average drug possession sentence in 2004 was three years, and the average time served was 16 months. Those last 30 days make up about 6% of the average time served, so. If the family can make it comfortably through 94% of the sentence, I find it hard to imagine that people failing to make it through that last 6% would be a frequent enough occurrence to be a real problem.

[Neutraligon]

Since the women are not sacrificing their fertility permanently I fail to see why that would be a good thing. As to the men, that 30 days in jail can have a rather big effect on the family members of that person. What if the person in jail is the primary breadwinner for the family (this despite them having a conviction)?

In more down-to-earth terms, it would make a lot more sense and would probably be cheaper to just provide them with contraceptives, although I see no issue at all with putting the women on reasonably long term contraceptives. Those things usually last a year or so, right? I don't see many men taking this option though, and if they did they'd be foolish.

4 years. In my opinion this is actually incentive to reoffend, since those contraceptives can be expensive for the poor.

The average drug possession sentence in 2004 was three years, and the average time served was 16 months. Those last 30 days make up about 6% of the average time served, so. If the family can make it comfortably through 94% of the sentence, I find it hard to imagine that people failing to make it through that last 6% would be a frequent enough occurrence to be a real problem.

Why do you assume the family made it comfortably though that 94%?

[Zottistan]

In more down-to-earth terms, it would make a lot more sense and would probably be cheaper to just provide them with contraceptives, although I see no issue at all with putting the women on reasonably long term contraceptives. Those things usually last a year or so, right? I don't see many men taking this option though, and if they did they'd be foolish.

4 years. In my opinion this is actually incentive to reoffend, since those contraceptives can be expensive for the poor.

I mean there's "a few months of saving" expensive and there's "giving up a year and a third of your life" expensive.

The average drug possession sentence in 2004 was three years, and the average time served was 16 months. Those last 30 days make up about 6% of the average time served, so. If the family can make it comfortably through 94% of the sentence, I find it hard to imagine that people failing to make it through that last 6% would be a frequent enough occurrence to be a real problem.

Why do you assume the family made it comfortably though that 94%?

Yeah, comfortably was the wrong word I guess, but the point still stands. If they can get by through 94%, I doubt anybody reasonable would sterilize themselves for the sake of that last 6%.

[Neutraligon]

4 years. In my opinion this is actually incentive to reoffend, since those contraceptives can be expensive for the poor.

I mean there's "a few months of saving" expensive and there's "giving up a year and a third of your life" expensive.

There is also the free food, housing, other medical care, etc.

The average drug possession sentence in 2004 was three years, and the average time served was 16 months. Those last 30 days make up about 6% of the average time served, so. If the family can make it comfortably through 94% of the sentence, I find it hard to imagine that people failing to make it through that last 6% would be a frequent enough occurrence to be a real problem.

Why do you assume the family made it comfortably though that 94%?

Yeah, comfortably was the wrong word I guess, but the point still stands. If they can get by through 94%, I doubt anybody reasonable would sterilize themselves for the sake of that last 6%.[/quote]There is getting through while starving and getting through. If the family is dependent on that 1 person that 30 days can be rather significant.

[Liriena]

So eugenics are still alive and well. That sucks.

They may call it "voluntary", but that's superficial at best. The intent of this is quite clear, and it's unacceptable, specially when you take into account the overrepresentation of minorities and non-violent offenders in the American prison system.

[Liriena]

What criminal would take this offer?

A desperate one maybe?

And if you combine desperation with not understanding the meaning of what's being offered, which is bound to be the case with many people, particularly with those who are mentally ill...

[USS Monitor]

What's with the [r] in the title?

NS can block judges now. *Nods*

I wish.

About the actual subject of the thread, I don't see how it's going to be effective. Sterilizing people doesn't make them less dangerous to the public.

[Sovaal]

NS can block judges now. *Nods*

I wish.

About the actual subject of the thread, I don't see how it's going to be effective. Sterilizing people doesn't make them less dangerous to the public.

I say we actually use those tax payer-funded sports rings for something of actual use and start our own gladiatorial battles.


/s

[Salus Maior]

...Wait, what? How is that supposed to help with drug sentencing?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

If there is one thing on which I disagree with the left more than anything else, it's their irrational fear of "eugenics."

Society walks on eggshells to prevent high-stakes jobs from going to criminals, but it doesn't get much more high-stakes than parenting. What's the alternative, then? Trust them to do something so high-stakes? Or if not, take their kids away at birth, only for half the damage to already have been done through their DNA?

We tell any guy considering having sex that unless he gets that vasectomy, he's on the hook for child support if she happens to decide not to abort. But heaven forbid we put a little extra pressure to get sterilized on those who have no business polluting the gene pool in the first place.

[MERIZoC]

Depressing that this isnt the worst thing I've seen today....

Anyway, anyone who is under the impression that this is "voluntary" is either a serial pedant, or lacks a basic understanding of the concept. This is coercion, plain and simple, and its completely disgusting.

[Threlizdun]

If there is one thing on which I disagree with the left more than anything else, it's their irrational fear of "eugenics."

Society walks on eggshells to prevent high-stakes jobs from going to criminals, but it doesn't get much more high-stakes than parenting. What's the alternative, then? Trust them to do something so high-stakes? Or if not, take their kids away at birth, only for half the damage to already have been done through their DNA?

We tell any guy considering having sex that unless he gets that vasectomy, he's on the hook for child support if she happens to decide not to abort. But heaven forbid we put a little extra pressure to get sterilized on those who have no business polluting the gene pool in the first place.

The left fears eugenics because its a pseudoscience that has historically blamed poverty on genetics, regarded people of color as fundamentally inferior to whites, seen women as fundamentally subservient to men whose central purpose is breeding, and that views people with disabilities as subhuman. Eugenics belongs in the garbage bin of history.

[Liriena]

If there is one thing on which I disagree with the left more than anything else, it's their irrational fear of "eugenics."

Society walks on eggshells to prevent high-stakes jobs from going to criminals, but it doesn't get much more high-stakes than parenting. What's the alternative, then? Trust them to do something so high-stakes? Or if not, take their kids away at birth, only for half the damage to already have been done through their DNA?

We tell any guy considering having sex that unless he gets that vasectomy, he's on the hook for child support if she happens to decide not to abort. But heaven forbid we put a little extra pressure to get sterilized on those who have no business polluting the gene pool in the first place.

The left fears eugenics because its a pseudoscience that has historically blamed poverty on genetics, regarded people of color as fundamentally inferior to whites, seen women as fundamentally subservient to men whose central purpose is breeding, and that views people with disabilities as subhuman. Eugenics belongs in the garbage bin of history.

Yup. The historical record has not been kind to eugenics. Our past has more than enough examples of eugenics translating into atrocities to make us be at least skeptical about the value of eugenics, regardless of the good or bad intentions of the people advocating for them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

The left fears eugenics because its a pseudoscience that has historically blamed poverty on genetics, regarded people of color as fundamentally inferior to whites, seen women as fundamentally subservient to men whose central purpose is breeding, and that views people with disabilities as subhuman. Eugenics belongs in the garbage bin of history.

Yup. The historical record has not been kind to eugenics. Our past has more than enough examples of eugenics translating into atrocities to make us be at least skeptical about the value of eugenics, regardless of the good or bad intentions of the people advocating for them.

Guilt by association does not negate the connection between behaviour and genetics that should be obvious if only from comparing different animals.

[Liberated Territories]

I don't see anything wrong with this. Regardless of it is genetic or not, poverty and crime seem to be transmitted from generation to generation and stopping it at its source seems logical. This, plus making abortion safe and legal and increasing access to contraceptives seem like the best path to go for eradicating crime.

What's with the [r] in the title?

alveolar trill

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Sovaal]

If it was truly voluntary, I wouldn't see anything wrong. Of course, life doesn't work out like that.

[Infected Mushroom]

It makes sense.

There's also a substantially reduced probability that they will create children who could end up becoming future criminals. Bad parents have a tendency to raise bad children.

I support this; its positive social engineering. Its the judiciary using its discretionary power (sentencing) as a tool to responsibly re-direct society towards a more crime free direction.

[The Federation of Kendor]

If there is one thing on which I disagree with the left more than anything else, it's their irrational fear of "eugenics."

Society walks on eggshells to prevent high-stakes jobs from going to criminals, but it doesn't get much more high-stakes than parenting. What's the alternative, then? Trust them to do something so high-stakes? Or if not, take their kids away at birth, only for half the damage to already have been done through their DNA?

We tell any guy considering having sex that unless he gets that vasectomy, he's on the hook for child support if she happens to decide not to abort. But heaven forbid we put a little extra pressure to get sterilized on those who have no business polluting the gene pool in the first place.

So you support eugenics and think that all Human traits, including mental traits, are encoded at our genes. Also, do you also think that the dead of a bloodline and generation are not significant enough, due to some carrying negative traits, and the fact that our population are now in the billions number

[Internationalist Bastard]

So I can spend a year and 1000 bucks at minimum, or I can get a month and a free surgery. I'll take #2