4 ms·

Inmates offered reduced sentences for sterilization

4 points by abhi3 9y ago

mindcrime 9y ago
That... that.... shit. Words cannot even begin to describe how despicable this is.
- accountno2 9y ago
  Forgive me, but I don't understand why this is "despicable". How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? What if they were only subsidized vasectomies. Incentivized birth control? Subsidized birth control? As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing. How is that different? The fact that prisoners are significantly more likely to have mental illnesses (many of which are largely genetically linked) has been extensively researched. It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. I understand why people might feel uncomfortable about this topic. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? Incentivized via jail time is functionally equivalent to criminalizing non-compliance, even when it's characterized as a sentence reduction (it's equivalent to an across the board sentence reduction, with new imprisonment for those who do not cooperate.) It is, in that sense, coercive. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Even were sterilization coerced by imprisonment for non-cooperation to acceptable when the person subjected to it had a diagnosed with a genetic disease (which, I should emphasize again, it is not), doing so because of the presence of a traits that has a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions, some of which have a genetic component, would still be significantly less justifiable.
    - accountno2 9y ago
      >Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. I think there's a difference between saying "If you don't undergo sterilization we'll imprison you." and saying "You're already being sent to prison, but if you undergo sterilization you don't have to go for as long." The latter is reasonably comparable to saying "Hi, I'll give you $X if you get a vasectomy." >a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions Anything but. >some of which have a genetic component Most of which.
    - Powerofmene 9y ago
      Not that I agree with being given this "choice" and I use the term quite generously here, 1). This is not the same as criminalizing non-compliance because these people are not in jail for refusing a vasectomy. I do not agree with the Judge giving them the opportunity to get out early by surrendering their reproductive rights or my forgoing those rights temporarily in the case of women, these people are in jail for breaking the law not for refusing birth control. 2). I know that there are genetic conditions that cause serious birth defects and a life of unrelenting pain and suffering. I know that sterilization is offered by some in the medical community but I am unaware of anything like that being criminalizes. If it is that is in fact disgusting. 3). At one time people in institutions and those with mental retardation or mental illness have been sterilized without their consent. Times have changed and that is no longer acceptable in the US, thankfully, but even back when this was considered acceptable and widely practiced, it was not criminal for a family to refuse.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. Only from a very pedantic viewpoint. Practically speaking, that's what's going on. And the government doesn't need to be in the "sterilization" business at all. It's just not an appropriate role for government. And never mind how de-humanizing this is: to be told, essentially, "you're such a horrible person that we want to make sure you never reproduce". Imagine somebody telling you that and think how it would feel. Now try having some empathy for these prisoners. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though. We're talking about the State coercing people into sacrificing their reproductive ability. If you can't see the problem with that, then our worldviews are so different that I can't imagine anything else I can say that would make any difference.
Mz 9y ago
for 30 days shaved off their sentence. Vasectomies are offered for men and hormone implants in the arm for women. Eh, I think the big feels are overblown. It sounds to me like a relatively small amount of time shaved off of a sentence and some people might view this as an opportunity to get free birth control rather than coercion. It might help to know how much of their entire sentence 30 days represents. If they are serving 31 days, that is nearly the entire sentence. If they are serving six months to a year, it is a meaningful percentage, but not huge. If they are serving more than a year, this might seriously be a nit, an excuse to give them free birth control. I am willing to hear reasoned arguments to the contrary, but I am failing to see what the big deal is.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  You are a terrible person, Mz. You are so terrible, I hope you never have children. Your genes need to be removed from the gene pool in order to improve the human race. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Not really, but that's basically what these prisoners are being told. Don't you think that's a bit de-humanizing?
  - Mz 9y ago
    That may be what the judge is thinking, but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. The women are not being sterilized. They are being offered a fairly low hassle and reliable form of birth control. I have personally known women who wanted to be sterilized at a young age and couldn't get it. I knew one woman who ended up pregnant for the third time out of wedlock by her alcoholic boyfriend after the medical establishment turned down her request to be sterilized. Just because that is the opinion of the judge does not mean this is not going to be viewed as a genuine opportunity by some people whose lives suck so very fucking much that they can't seem to stay out of jail.
    - mindcrime 9y ago
      but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. Fair enough. I was admittedly looking at it from a male perspective where a vasectomy is basically sterilization (albeit a form that can be reversed, at least on some occasions). Nonetheless, for an agent of the State to use the "authority" granted to him/her to push something like this strikes me as very wrong. These aren't just random people off the street, they're prisoners who are having their freedom used as a bargaining chip. Also, and not to be glib, but there are other ways to avoid becoming pregnant, including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective.

4 points by abhi3 9y ago

mindcrime 9y ago

That... that.... shit. Words cannot even begin to describe how despicable this is.

accountno2 9y ago
Forgive me, but I don't understand why this is "despicable". How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? What if they were only subsidized vasectomies. Incentivized birth control? Subsidized birth control? As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing. How is that different? The fact that prisoners are significantly more likely to have mental illnesses (many of which are largely genetically linked) has been extensively researched. It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. I understand why people might feel uncomfortable about this topic. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > How would this be any different than government incentivized vasectomies? Incentivized via jail time is functionally equivalent to criminalizing non-compliance, even when it's characterized as a sentence reduction (it's equivalent to an across the board sentence reduction, with new imprisonment for those who do not cooperate.) It is, in that sense, coercive. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. > As I understand it it's already common practice to discourage people with genetic diseases etc from reproducing Even were sterilization coerced by imprisonment for non-cooperation to acceptable when the person subjected to it had a diagnosed with a genetic disease (which, I should emphasize again, it is not), doing so because of the presence of a traits that has a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions, some of which have a genetic component, would still be significantly less justifiable.
  - accountno2 9y ago
    >Doing so in threat of imprisonment is also despicable. I think there's a difference between saying "If you don't undergo sterilization we'll imprison you." and saying "You're already being sent to prison, but if you undergo sterilization you don't have to go for as long." The latter is reasonably comparable to saying "Hi, I'll give you $X if you get a vasectomy." >a loose correlation with a broad class of conditions Anything but. >some of which have a genetic component Most of which.
  - Powerofmene 9y ago
    Not that I agree with being given this "choice" and I use the term quite generously here, 1). This is not the same as criminalizing non-compliance because these people are not in jail for refusing a vasectomy. I do not agree with the Judge giving them the opportunity to get out early by surrendering their reproductive rights or my forgoing those rights temporarily in the case of women, these people are in jail for breaking the law not for refusing birth control. 2). I know that there are genetic conditions that cause serious birth defects and a life of unrelenting pain and suffering. I know that sterilization is offered by some in the medical community but I am unaware of anything like that being criminalizes. If it is that is in fact disgusting. 3). At one time people in institutions and those with mental retardation or mental illness have been sterilized without their consent. Times have changed and that is no longer acceptable in the US, thankfully, but even back when this was considered acceptable and widely practiced, it was not criminal for a family to refuse.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  It doesn't sound like they're being forced to undergo sterilization. Only from a very pedantic viewpoint. Practically speaking, that's what's going on. And the government doesn't need to be in the "sterilization" business at all. It's just not an appropriate role for government. And never mind how de-humanizing this is: to be told, essentially, "you're such a horrible person that we want to make sure you never reproduce". Imagine somebody telling you that and think how it would feel. Now try having some empathy for these prisoners. Genuinely curious why you find this so despicable though. We're talking about the State coercing people into sacrificing their reproductive ability. If you can't see the problem with that, then our worldviews are so different that I can't imagine anything else I can say that would make any difference.

Mz 9y ago

for 30 days shaved off their sentence. Vasectomies are offered for men and hormone implants in the arm for women. Eh, I think the big feels are overblown. It sounds to me like a relatively small amount of time shaved off of a sentence and some people might view this as an opportunity to get free birth control rather than coercion. It might help to know how much of their entire sentence 30 days represents. If they are serving 31 days, that is nearly the entire sentence. If they are serving six months to a year, it is a meaningful percentage, but not huge. If they are serving more than a year, this might seriously be a nit, an excuse to give them free birth control. I am willing to hear reasoned arguments to the contrary, but I am failing to see what the big deal is.

mindcrime 9y ago
You are a terrible person, Mz. You are so terrible, I hope you never have children. Your genes need to be removed from the gene pool in order to improve the human race. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Not really, but that's basically what these prisoners are being told. Don't you think that's a bit de-humanizing?
- Mz 9y ago
  That may be what the judge is thinking, but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. The women are not being sterilized. They are being offered a fairly low hassle and reliable form of birth control. I have personally known women who wanted to be sterilized at a young age and couldn't get it. I knew one woman who ended up pregnant for the third time out of wedlock by her alcoholic boyfriend after the medical establishment turned down her request to be sterilized. Just because that is the opinion of the judge does not mean this is not going to be viewed as a genuine opportunity by some people whose lives suck so very fucking much that they can't seem to stay out of jail.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    but one of the central problems that women face is that an unexpected pregnancy can be life altering, and it is usually not good news. Fair enough. I was admittedly looking at it from a male perspective where a vasectomy is basically sterilization (albeit a form that can be reversed, at least on some occasions). Nonetheless, for an agent of the State to use the "authority" granted to him/her to push something like this strikes me as very wrong. These aren't just random people off the street, they're prisoners who are having their freedom used as a bargaining chip. Also, and not to be glib, but there are other ways to avoid becoming pregnant, including at least one that is (biblical reports aside) 100% effective.