I’m pretty sure there are states that have this option. I read it in an article discussing this particular case, but it was in print and I can’t find it online for whatever reason. Anyhow, IIRC, they had regulations for offering it. The person had to have at least $10, 000 in unpaid child support and have a certain number of children with a certain number of different women (3 might’ve been the operative number, I’ll keep searching around for the cite.) The people in question were given the option of jail time or a vasectomy (after it was done they had to come back to court with a doctor’s note verifying the procedure had been performed). Most of the men chose vasectomies actually.
Were they really lying, or was it a mistake? I don’t see what someone would have to gain from lying about that.
Coercion would be a judge saying to you; “Undergo this medical procedure or else pay x amount of money/go to jail/have your right to do x taken away.”
The subtlety of my post, which is just a reference to Roe V. Wade, must have gotten lost. Let me spell it out: Medical treatment is a personal matter. It should never fall to a court to make medical decisions for a legally competent adult.
But “the right to do X” is supposed to be taken away. That’s the expected outcome. The judge is offering a compromise that would make both sides happy. The guilty party does not have to accept.
I just fail to see how “Undergo this medical procedure or go to jail” is any worse than simply “Go to jail.” It would seem that option A is less cruel.
In that case, all laws are coercive. They pretty much all say " Do [or don’t do) this or else go to jail/pay x amount of money/ lose your right to do x."
The court is not making the medical decision. The court is allowing the person to make the medical decision in order to gain a benefit. If he chooses not to have the vasectomy, he is in the same position as if he wasn’t offered the choice. The court most likely doesn’t care which option he picks.