Banned from having kids?

Great Debates
41

well, one Child molester I knew was specifically forbidden to go to church (children there). A woman was forbidden from contact with her daughter (who had an outstanding warrant on her). Yes, the agents could search any/all property associated with the person at any time w/o permission w/o probable cause (I used to do room, purse, pocket etc searches all the time) and of course have to pee on demand (yes, did that,too. Can’t pay me enough anymore to do that one). Travel is restricted as well - for example, travel outside the state is rarely permitted, and in some cases, they cannot travel outside their county of origin, either w/o specific authorization. If they’re on tether, they must have prior permission before going anywhere (including stopping at a store on the way home), must be back at the specific time.

Seems to me that they (D o C/courts) have a tremendous amount of latitude when devising these terms and conditions. Where they live, who they can be with, what places they can go to, what they can/cannot have in their possession (computer for example), where they can work. What kind of jobs they can take (sometimes necessitating career changes while on supervision - for example a contractor may not be able to work at that field since they may move from job site to job site during the day - and some parole/probation conditions do not allow for that).

Certainly, they’re not allowed to be in possession of guns or be in a house where guns are stored.

They are required to give “true and complete” reports of their behavior, which can be considered to be a violation of the 5th adm. I’ve seen cases where they were not given the option of refusing medical treatment (one case we all had to get vaccinated against Hepititus, one tried to refuse, she was forced).

42

Some people would consider the right to eat, sleep…name your favorite bodily function…basic human rights. There didn’t seem to be a need to spell out that our government wouldn’t forcibly starve anyone or forbid them from using the potty (sorry, we are toilet learning in our house). Some people would consider reproduction to constitute one of those basic biological functions. We are quite upset with China’s insistance on forbidding this basic human right, IIRC.

43

The right to free speech doesn’t allow you to commit slander.
The right to freedom of religion doesn’t allow you to perform human sacrifice.
The right to travel doesn’t allow you to drive drunk.
It’s only reasonable that the right to procreate shouldn’t allow you to make more babies than you can support.

44

Sua:

I don’t really know about probation conditions, but I do know about parole conditions, and I imagine they’re fairly similar. Parolees can have a curfew imposed on them, need permission to travel out of the state (standard) or out of an area defined by their PO (can’t leave NYC or even can’t go to Queens when they live in Brooklyn without permission) and can be forbidden to hold a particular job,or to live in a particular residence.They can not only be forbidden to drive, but to even to apply for or possess a drivers license,to open a bank account or possess credit,debit or ATM cards. They are required to answer all questions asked by the parole officer and to do so truthfully, and can be required to comply with medical and mental health treatment.As far as I know, there aren’t any restrictions on marriage itself - but living with or even having contact with the spouse is another story.And to cover the last amendment which could apply, there is no bail on a parole warrant.Some of the conditions are spelled out when they are paroled, but there’s also a standard catch-all condition, which states that the parolee will follow the instructions of the PO and obey any additional conditions they are given.

My mind is blanking on the standard for the conditions - I think its either an “articulable reason” or a “reasonable basis”.I know the standard for searches of a parolee or his/her residence by a parole officer is an “articulable reason.”

45

Thanks to both wring and doreen for the info on parole/probation restrictions. Obviously, some of them infringe on what would otherwise be rights protected by the First Amendment, especially freedom of association. I was a bit taken aback by wring’s mention of a restriction on attending a church service, although at least there the purpose of the restriction was to prevent contact with potential victims rather than to prevent the guy from worshiping.

Which brings me to I guess what is the core of my objection to the “no more reproduction” element of Mr. Oakley’s probation. Namely, the primary purpose–even the sole purpose–of the restriction is to prevent the probationer from exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Obviously, reproductive freedom sometimes has to give way to other valid governmental necessities, just as freedom of speech and religion sometimes take a back seat to a content-neutral regulation. Thus, I’m not at all offended that Mr. Oakley wouldn’t be able to have any more children if he were locked up in prison, since the point of prison is to punish him for criminal behavior. But when the express purpose of a restriction is to prevent him from exercising a right to which the Constitution accords one of the highest levels of protection, I start to get nervous.

46

But minty, the point of probation itself is also to punish him for criminal behavior as well as to rehabilitate.(and it rather seems to me that someone who wants to have another child he can’t support has a ways to go before he’s rehabilitated) I don’t think the purpose was to prevent him from procreating, but rather to prevent him from siring children he wouldn’t be either able or willing to support.It may not be likely that he will be able to support ten children, but it’s not impossible (works multiple jobs, marries someone wealthier than he is, wins the lottery, gets an inheritance,starts a profitable business) Sure,if he violates the conditions of his probation he can end up in prison.He knew that when he accepted the plea bargain.Apparently, at the time, he thought that accepting the restriction on his right to procreate was a better option than taking his chances on consecutive sentences.Imagine the following scenario- such a restriction is determined not to be permissible. The next guy in Mr Oakley’s shoes doesn’t get such an offer and ends up doing eight years in prison. Did he benefit by the restriction being prohibited? I don’t think so. He most likely still will not be able to procreate during those eight years, and has also lost much of the liberty he would have had on probation (there are a lot of possible conditions, but no one gets all of them).

And (this is a serious question,but I know its going to come out wrong) I don’t think the constitution mentions procreation explicitly, so I’m assuming the right to procreate exists under the same umbrella that all of the not specifically mentioned rights do.Does the Constitution really accord the right to procreate more protection than the right to travel freely,to live where or with whom one wishes,to freely associate or assemble or to determine one’s own medical treatment?

47

So, Robodude, if the ability to support my children prevents me from having them - if my husband and I hit hard times should my children be taken from me? Seems awfully harsh. Does this apply to fifteen year old single moms with little chance of providing for their children through their sixteen year old boyfriends (or themselves)? Or does this just apply to sex - poor people should be forbidden from having sex? And what level should we demand people provide for their children before they have sex - have a job? Have a good job? Have a trust fund established to take the kids through college?

Maybe its the “have more babies than you can support.” Maybe we should force anyone having multiple births greater than triplets to provide proof of support or undergo selective abortion. Should we audit tax returns for the number of children supportable above the poverty line - don’t meet the requirement, get a vascetomy?

BTW, for anyone out there who occationally makes comments like this, the you need a license to fish, but any dummy can have children type of comment is terribly offensive to anyone (10% of the population) who is infertile, and by inference, too dumb to even have kids. Used to do it myself, and then I discovered what it sounded like on the other end.

Don’t get me wrong, the guys a jerk, and his genes probably shouldn’t be in the pool. I’m just not comfortable stepping on that particular slippery slope. On the other hand, the moms deserve part of the responsiblity here, too. What was going through their minds? Should we arrest them, too, if they can’t support their kids?

48

Not sure I get the distinction. The purpose isn’t to prevent him from procreating, but rather to prevent him from procreating? Whether or not people are willing or able to support children has never been a legitimate reason for the state to prevent them from having children.

As SuaSponte has already noted, it’s unclear how far a state may go in restricting constitutional rights as a term of probation or parole. Thus, the Wisconsin court is treading relatively untouched legal ground.

Nevertheless, the right to have children is afforded the highest level of protection under the Due Process clause of the Fouteenth Amendment. I can think of no case in which the Supreme Court has said it’s okay for a state to take an action for the express purpose of preventing a person from having children, no matter what their reasons for doing so. When it comes to the rights to travel and association you mention (I’m unaware of any blanket right to refuse medical treatment), probation/parole restrictions impact those rights incidentally, since the express purpose of those restrictions is to keep a person under state supervision and control.

Moreover, nobody has yet demonstrated to me how preventing this jerk from creating more children is going to get him to pay up for the ones he already has, which is what the court said it was trying to do. Seriously, what’s the connection between the problem and the supposed cure? If the court wants to tag his worthless butt for child support there are many, many more direct ways of doing so.

49

I think there are lots of people who should be banned from having kids. For example: Bush, and lots of other people i know. But they have their rights so i can’t stop them. Too bad.

50

The distiction is that unlike the Norplant condition of probation(which caused a huge controversey a few years ago in a child abuse case), this man can procreate under certain possible, though unlikely conditions.

I don’t think the purpose is exactly to keep them under state supervision and control,because why would a parolee who travels from say NYC to Long Island for the day be less under supervision/control than one who doesn’t?Rather, I think the restrictions are the control-people not under supervision are free to do these things,while those under supervision are not.Certainly, if this man had not been convicted he could not be prevented from procreating, but in fact he has been convicted.

51

The manner in which rights may be restricted as terms of probation or parole are exactly the same as those that may be restricted by incarceration. P & P is an alternative to incarceration and can basically be considered “jailed at home”. If you are incarcerated, your rights to speech, assembly, travel, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, practice of religion, etc are regularly curtailed or denied. Resonable suspicion is not required for jailers to search any cell, at any time. Nor is it required of P & P officers to search their charges.

The constitution says that life or liberty may not be denied * except* by due process of law. If reproduction is a right, like speech, assembly, and the like, then it may be curtailed similarly as terms of a sentence provided by a lawful conviction, i.e. due process.

Jail and prison inmates have one right: the right to humane treatment. This would include such things as freedom from torture and abuse, reasonable freedom of religious expression, the right to basic medical care and so forth. No inmate in any American prison has ever reasonably expected any right to copulate. Even conjugal visits are a priviledge to those few prisoners that are granted them. Probationers and parolees may have their freedoms similarly restricted since they are still considered to be in the custody of the state’s correctional system. I think this point is rarely understood by anyone who has never been on parole or probation or never worked in law enforcement.

52

Except that this particular restriction is one that would never be placed on a person in actual prison. A prisoner’s opportunities for reproduction may be severely curtailed, but it’s not as if prisoners get senteced to ten years in jail and loss of reproductive freedom. We send people to jail to incarcerate them, not to prevent them from having more babies. (Gotta love them unintended consequences, however! :D)

As a matter of fact, I just glanced at Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the prisoner marriage case that Otto mentioned yesterday. Even assuming that the standards for parole/probation restrictions and prison restrictions are the same, I fail to see how the reproductive restriction on Mr. Oakley passes constitutional scrutiny. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll quote the headnote rather than the case:

As far as I can tell, the reproductive restriction fails these tests miserably.[ul][li]Resonable relation between regulation and neutral government interest: No. The government interest is to get Oakley to pay his child support. Wearing a condom does not cause people to pay their child support. Further, preventing a person from reproducing is not a neutral government interest, since reproduction is a constitutional right.[/li][li]Alternative means of exercising right open to [probationer]: I don’t think “alterative means” includes complying with the state’s arbitrary conditions, but I suppose you could argue the “pay up to reproduce” condition satisfies this prong of the test.[/li][li]Impact of exercising right on [probation] staff, [probationers’] liberty, and allocation of [probation] resources: No impact at all.[/li]“Exaggerated response”/ready alternative: Garnish his wages, put a lock on his bank account, seize his ATM card, and toss his deadbeat ass in jail to rethink his priorities if he fails to pay up. Every one of those options will go a lot farther towards getting Oakley to pay his child support than will prohibiting further children. [/ul]

53

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
As far as I can tell, the reproductive restriction fails these tests miserably.[ul][li]Resonable relation between regulation and neutral government interest: No. The government interest is to get Oakley to pay his child support. Wearing a condom does not cause people to pay their child support. Further, preventing a person from reproducing is not a neutral government interest, since reproduction is a constitutional right. [/li][/QUOTE]

Two thoughts. First, the governmental interest in having Oakley pay his child support for his nine current kids may be harmed if he has additional children. If he can’t afford to pay his current child support, he is even less likely to be able to do so if he has more children to support.
Second, an additional concern is preventing Oakley from committing future crimes. As the nexus of his crime requires children (in order to not support them), and he has demonstrated a pattern of criminal behavior, it’s reasonable for the state to assume that, unless Oakley demonstrates by paying his current support, he will commit the crime again if he has more children.

[QUOTE]
[li]Alternative means of exercising right open to [probationer]: I don’t think “alterative means” includes complying with the state’s arbitrary conditions, but I suppose you could argue the “pay up to reproduce” condition satisfies this prong of the test.[/li][/QUOTE]

I don’t like it, but I agree.

[QUOTE]
[li]Impact of exercising right on [probation] staff, [probationers’] liberty, and allocation of [probation] resources: No impact at all.[/li][/QUOTE]

Well, if he has another kid and doesn’t support it, the probation office would have to expend resources to investigate and charge him with a probation violation.

[QUOTE]
[li]“Exaggerated response”/ready alternative: Garnish his wages, put a lock on his bank account, seize his ATM card, and toss his deadbeat ass in jail to rethink his priorities if he fails to pay up. Every one of those options will go a lot farther towards getting Oakley to pay his child support than will prohibiting further children. [/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]

Again, probation is not only interested in rehabilitation for past crimes, but preventing future ones. Prohibiting future children serves to prevent nonsupport of that future child.

Sua

54

True, but the Wisconsin court went out of its way to stress that the restriction had nothing to do with Oakley’s ability to fulfill his child support obligations, but rather his refusal to contribute anything to their support. The ability to pay for children is not a prerequistite to having them.

True again. But having a child is not itself a crime. There are far more effective and less constitutionally-intrusive ways to prevent Oakley from failing to support any future children.

Sure, but that’s a relatively small expenditure, and a hypothetical one at that. After all, it’s already their job to investigate and charge a probationer with violations of crimes, so they’re not really going to any extra expense just because Oakley can’t keep his willie in his shorts. I have to think the constitutional right does rather well when balanced against that expense.

55

I have an update to this debate of last year.

I heard on the radio today that the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of David Oakley, this upholding the WI court’s right to impose not having children as a condition of parole.

I did a google search, however, and was unable to confirm this.

56

I agree completely that people should have to seek a license to have children. They should then face a very harsh penalty for having kids without being licensed. Overpopulation is the root cause for soooo many problems, how can someone claim that they should have the right to make as many babies as they want? We don’t accept that religious belief entitles someone to kill, it should not grant the right to give life indescriminately either.

57

And what happens when people have children without a liscense?

Oh dear. Picture the War on Unauthorized Children. Now that’s scary.

58

Curse those irresponsible Kryptonians!

The situation as the OP’s link described seems pretty straightforward. Have another kid despite demostrated irresponsibility, and go to jail for non-payment of child-support, a crime of which the man is clearly guilty.

Trying to make prohibitions on having children a general thing (i.e. license required) would be a major hassle, and it’s fairly easy to handle this on a jerk-by-jerk basis. The logical thing for this clown to do is submit to a vasectomy, but I’ll bet he has quite a fondness for stupidity.

59

Dear Bongmaster,

It has recently come to our attention that your parent’s (Mr Aufton Bates Master and Mrs Lucilia Arnez McGuillicutty) childbearing license was expired during the timeframe in which you were concieved. I understand this regrettable incident was a simple misunderstanding of the proper renewal timeframes, however, the law is the law. Please report to the local authorities immediately. They will see you safely to correctional institution 5AA23 where this unhappy incident will properly be remedied.

Your parents are already in custody.

Thank you for your cooperation,
The Man

60

How would these licenses be issued?
Perceived financial stability of the progenators?

Then we would have kids spawned by only wealthy parents. Gee, Kliebold suddenly popped into my head.

Mental acuity?

What test would be used to demonstrate that? If one says “IQ under 80-no kids!”, that brings to mind the forced sterilization in Germany (and the US, FWIW) in the earlier parts of this century.

What if the judge/public official that issues the certificates just quit smoking and is REALLLLYYYY crabby that day?

“Sorry Mr and Mrs Doe, but you all piss me off with your matching chambray shirts. [soup nazi voice] NO KIDS FOR YOU! [/soup nazi voice]”

OK, tangent over.

It would be nice if everyone thought twice before bringing a child into this world. But it ain’t gonna happen. There will always be people like Oakley tossing his seed and hoping it catches. There will also be women like the ones he impregnated willing to have more kids with a ‘deadbeat’ like him.