piaffe: What’s your plan’s method for reversing the sterilization if the accused wins on appeal?
So punishments for crimes shouldn’t be based upon logic and reasoning? No wonder our prisons are overcrowded.
Another argument for this is the world’s geniuses. Many of the greatest men and women in the world came from undesirable stock. Many of them WERE undesirable stock. However they have had a profound impact on the way society functions now. Who is the one to decide what is right and what is not?
Look at William Burroughs. A lifetime junkie, killed his wife in a drunken game of William Tell, a homosexual. He had a child. And it’s arguable that he has had more influence on modern popular culture than any other single person in the past 50 years. Who would decide whether or not he is fit to pass on his genes?
Or another example. Kurt Cobain, influenced millions of kids in a generation. Became an icon. Came from an abusive background and spent his life as a heroin addict culminating in suicide. He also had a child.
I use Kurt Cobain and William Burroughs as my examples because they are both poster children for why your plan SHOULD go into effect, and why it should NOT go into effect. You could use them to argue either side. So who gets to decide ultimately?
Erek
By the way, I’m not in favor of forced sterilization, only because it doesn’t go far enough. I am in favor of mental reconditioning facilities, where inmates are forcibly rehabilitated. I am also in favor of permanent mind-wipes achieved through liberal amounts of LSD and electric shock therapy for convicted murderers who would be facing life in prison or the death penalty anyways.
I know, I’m an Orwellian nightmare. I’m glad I don’t have political aspirations. 
piaffe, I propose that we sterilize all people who are fired from McDonalds… I mean, hell, if they can’t perform that job then how could they ever raise a child? At least rapists can reform!
Depends: I don’t find it reasonable to chop off a man’s testicles or make a woman barren for a crime, though I’m sure I could come up with a few logical proofs of why it should be so.
Conveniently, all such proofs will not include such notions as justice, rehabilitation, the possibility of accidental sentening, and other notions that we have put in our justice system.
Logically, it would be best for the cops to have full power to search all private property whenever they want. This is not a reasonable request.
So you tell me.
Obviously not. Can you point to a single punishment currently in place which can be derived logically, given the crime?
Punishments are dictated by what society deems appropriate for the crime in question (indeed, whether a given action is a crime at all can, and does, also change) . Throughout history, said punishments have changed as the societies themselves changed. In general, the trend for such changes in punishment is from “brutal” to “compassionate”. And compassion is not a logical trait, it is an emotional one.
darwin, it seems to me that preventing grievous harm to innocent people should take precedence over refraining from doing something that might have eugenic effects, if the two conflict. Could you clarify what you meant here:
. You’re not really saying that giving a logical argument for a position makes that position eugenics, are you?
Also, I don’t see a relevant difference between your argument here
and this one:
We already have laws, and punishments, to deal with the crimes which have already happened. Prohibiting child molesters from having unsupervised contact with children constitutes a punishment for a crime which has yet to
happen. It is also a punishment that lasts well beyond that required to satisfy “societal debt”. That’s why it qualifies as “cruel and unusual” punishment.
[NOTE: Darwin’s Finch did NOT say this. He said something which I think rests on the same reasoning, and I am making that point by using the same words he did, but I am NOT implying that he said or thinks what I have just written about child molesters.]
In both cases, we prohibit someone from doing certain things he would otherwise have had the right to do in order to protect others. It may be that the prohibition has a punitive effect, and it may even be that the punitive effect is such that if we could achieve equal protection without it, we should, but in the absence of a viable alternative, the unwanted punitive effect is not a reason to refrain from protecting people by enforcing the prohibition.
Monty, here’s a plan: before the sterilization, store some of the person’s sperm/eggs (I understand that this is possible). Sterilize them. If they win on appeal, reverse the sterilization procedure if possible (vasectomies and tubal ligations can be reversed within certain time-frames, I think). If it cannot be reversed, they can use their previously stored sperm/eggs (for women, the state would pay the cost of having the embryo implanted).
mswas: you are missing my point. The reason for sterilization is not to control the gene pool, it is to prevent harm to innocent people. It may, if genetics determine behavior etc.etc., also have the effect of preventing the birth of a person who would have been a great influence on our culture. Why is that a reason not to do what we can to prevent harm to innocent people? By your reasoning, it seems we should also provide dating services for inmates. After all, for all we know, if they weren’t incarcerated, they would have had a child that would grow up to cure cancer.
Maybe the problem is that criminal justice is handled emotionally and not logically.
Or perhaps we aren’t compassionate ENOUGH to prisoners.
Erek
I got a better plan, piaffe, and it’s already conveniently in the Constitution. Prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Forced sterilization is cruel and unusual.
What would you suggest as a possible compassionate solution the prison problem?
-
For some, they should never walk among the free again, so reproduction is a moot point.
-
for the others, if you plan on having them be released to the streets again, it is much, much safer for all of us if they were treated humanely while being locked up.
Give me an example of some one who deserves forced surgery of any kind yet you wish to have walking around, and we’ll talk.
for the case that inspired the OP, it’s entirely possible that she’ll spend her remaining child bearing years inside.
Monty, whether forced sterilization is cruel and unusual is pretty much what’s at issue here. I gave a valid argument for why we should do it, and that argument together with the premise that if something is cruel and unusual, we should not do it, validly impliles (by modus tollens) that forced sterilization is not cruel and unusual. Which premise do you reject?
wring, I don’t wish that anyone who has raped or abused an animal or a child would ever be able to walk around again, so I don’t have any examples of the kind you asked for. However, I recognize that there are some things I don’t wish for that are nevertheless fair, and that it would be unjust in some cases to keep people in prison for life or to kill them even though they have done the things I listed. I do maintain that not only do these people not deserve to have children, we have a moral/ethical/whatever obligation to sterilize them so as to prevent their getting their hands on a child.
Nope, sorry - There are people who have been found guilty of crimes that you’ve listed, but that, by itself doesn’t bring it up to the standard that you have of ‘never should have children etc.’. as an example:
17 year old having sexual contact w/15 year old, in many jurisdictions (mine included) that person is prosecuted as a child molester.
And, naturally, I can certainly come up w/examples of people who should never be out - but that’s the point.
RE: abuse to an animal- keep in mind that for some, farming is an abuse of an animal, as is eating meat. So I’ll have to drop that from the list anyhow.
Again, if you can come up with a case scenario where some one is so evil that it justifies forced surgery, and yet their crime was so relatively non serious that they’d be sentenced to less than 30 years or so in prison, I’ll have to decline.
See- to me forced surgery =torture= supreme punishment. And, I cannot conceive of a situation where some one deserving that level of punishment would be out w/in their reproductive years.
Couldn’t spending the rest of your life in a jail cell deprived of your freedom be considered a form of torture?
Eliminate the War on People… I mean, the War on Drugs. That should free up a few million cells.
not as I understand the word.
On the surface this seems like the right thing to do, but it may be more complicated than simply letting people out of prison.
Imagine, letting millions of prisoners out, some who have been there for years, and telling them, “Oops, our mistake! Your free to go!”. I don’t think the majority of them will be thinking, “I’m free! Now how can I be a happy productive citizen?”
We’d be essentially starting an entirely new crime epidemic, and this one will have very little to do with drugs.
What makes you think that people who are in prison for non-violent, victimless drug offenses would suddenly be inclined to commit other crimes?
Prison time does strange things to people, Mr2001. On top of that, you’ll have a major increase in unemployment, and there will be of course the resentment at being incarcerated for what now appears to be no good reason.
Millions of unemployed ex-cons with a chip on their shoulder against authority. This sounds like the start of a major crime epidemic to me.
Of course this can be solved by having the government either hire every single ex-con released for massive construction projects, or conscripting them into the military, or possibly inventing a constructive religion with a high emphasis on discipline to control the ex-cons.
The first option will mean a major increase in taxes for all and a decrease in services provided by Uncle Sam. The second option is still unethical for many (though not for me) and may prove down the road to be a domestic threat. The third option is at present highly unethical (though, once again, not for me), takes a lot of time and patience, and if done improperly, may not work at all.