“this system” being the existing system, not the hypothetical “existing system + sterilization”. Sorry if that was unclear.
wring, I agree that we have different assessments of the severity of sterilization, and I’m inclined to think that the rest of our disagreement follows from that difference. Regarding your client, I too think that he deserves neither life in prison nor sterilization, but then I don’t think what he did (based on the description you gave) is child abuse, even if it is legally classified as such. For that reason, I don’t really see him as a counterexample.
Regarding the point you raised about mutilation–I’m not willing to concede that sterilization is mutilation without further specification of what you mean by ‘mutilation’ (any altering of one’s body? altering of one’s body against one’s will by someone else? involuntary altering of one’s body against one’s will by someone else just for fun?). However, I can concede these points without loss to my argument:
[ul]1. in all cases, physically changing a person’s body against his will simply in order to punish that person is wrong
2. in some cases, physically changing a person’s body against his will even if only to prevent harm to an innocent person is wrong
3. sterilization is physically changing a person’s body against his will[/ul]
The reason for sterilization would not be to punish the person (though it may in practice be a punishment for them), it would be to prevent situations in which innocent people would suffer harm. And, it seems to me that sterilization is not a case where 2 is true: it wouldn’t cause much if any pain (as would branding or removing flesh), it is not disfiguring (as is removing an ear or a nose), it will not prevent the person from doing anything he might want to do other than having children (as would removing fingers)…in short, all the reasons for which physically altering a person’s body against his will would be objectionable don’t seem to apply to sterilization in the situation I’ve described.
Monty, kindly indicate which of my arguments led you to believe that my position is motivated by a desire for revenge; that is a misunderstanding at best and one which I would be happy to correct.
And, did you understand what I meant by the statement, “there’s no such thing as the potential offspring?” Here’s what I meant: nothing (NOTHING) that exists is the potential offspring of anyone. That’s an instance of the more general thesis that there isn’t anything that doesn’t exist. Presumably you don’t think potential offspring exist? “The potential offspring of A” is a non-referring term; it does not designate anything at all. It functions as an unsatisfied description, sort of like “the roundest square” or “the biggest purple cow.” Putting the point another way, I’m not violating anyone’s right to life by not having a child with the guy next to me, any more than I’m mistreating the biggest purple cow by not providing it food and water. Why? Because there’s no such thing as the child I’m not having, just as there’s no such thing as the biggest purple cow.
I like mswas’s idea. We’d be saving about $50,000 per prisoner per year; we can afford to spend some of that on education, rehabilitation, and maybe even reparations.
I was actually referring to dealing with the currently imprisoned drug offenders issue, not the sterilization issue, which I don’t agree with anyway.
I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that one can’t punish someone based upon pure logical assumptions, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
It sounds reasonable enough, on paper anyways.
Unnecessary (medically), undesired surgury against the will of the patient = mutilation in that knives cut into the skin, scarring results etc. In any other venue, this would be called a criminal assault.
Another point - The Hypocratic Oath of doctors would preclude any ethical doctor from performing this operation against the will of the patient (adult) and w/o a medical necessity.
and re: the guy I mentioned - I’m suggesting that persons convicted of those types of crimes fall into two/three basic categories:
-
Not so serious (as in the guy I mentioned and quite a number of other cases as well) - these people would serve little time in prison, be considered low risk of reoffending, therefore no rationale exists to castrate/de-babify them.
-
Serious - (as in, I suspect, many of those who concern you). These people would be medium to serious risks, and serve sufficient time in prison so that child bearing is a moot point. Therefore, again, no rationale existing to castrate/de-babify them.
-
Most serious and heinous - remain in prison for the rest of their days (and for those who demand d/p that could also happen). These people are such a risk that they should never be part of society again, and again, their ability to procreate becomes moot since they won’t be out.
Bottom line:
If they’re a risk to potential children, then they’re a risk to other people as well and should be in prison. If they’re safe enough to be on the streets, there should be no rationale existing to castrate them.
What you seem to be arguing is that 1) A person who harms his or her children will, if the opportunity presented itself, harm his or her children again, 2) therefore, the person must not be allowed to have children.
The problem, of course, is that you have no way of knowing if 1) is, in fact, true. There are any number of circumstances which might render the individual unable / unwilling to duplicate his/her previous crime. And one cannot really know, during sentencing, whether a given individual falls within the “redeemable” category, or the “unredeemable” category. Especially for a first-time offender.
Also, sterilization does not preclude contact with other children, nor does it preclude adoption; therefore, the possibility is still very real, even if we limit the discussion to those who might well repeat their crime, that they can still cause harm to innocents, despite sterilization. So, again, it really prevents nothing.
Bryan, can you give me a very quick example of logical assumptions, a crime, and logical punishment? Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to use pure logic symbols, I’ll let you talk it out.
Not in this thread, eris. 
Fair enough.
wring, I think the reason I don’t accept your statement that
is that you and I disagree on two things: one, whether someone can pose a significant danger to children under their care without posing comparable danger to other people, and two, just how bad sterilization is. Here’s a link to a case where I think the guy should be sterilized, but doesn’t need to be kept off the streets for the rest of his life. My opinion is that his crime resulted not from malice but from sheer lack of judgement (if his story is true); therefore, I think he ought not to be able to have children under his care. Suppose that the facts were substantially the same but the killer was a 21 year old woman; in that case, she wouldn’t be kept in prison until her childbearing years are over, so it would not be a moot point.
Under the definition of “mutilation” you provided, I agree that sterilization counts as mutilation. However, I don’t think it follows from the fact that something is mutilation (on that definition) that it ought never to be done. That is because I think something can fulfill the definition w/o it’s being the case that the reasons why we generally find mutilation unacceptable apply. That is, sterilization is not horribly painful, disfiguring, or done for no purpose other than the cutting of skin.
Darwin,
Pretty much, but I’m making the stronger claim that 2) follows from 1*): a person who harms his children is very likely to harm his children again if the opportunity presents itself. Further, I don’t think we need to know that 1*) is true, we just need very good reason to think that it is. So I agree that we can’t know something like that, but I don’t think we need to in order to have an obligation to see to it that the person never has any (more) kids (and I assumed it would be obvious that on my proposal anyone who had to be sterilized would not be allowed to adopt). Further, I think there’s an important difference in the risk to a child between being being parented by someone and just being in contact with that person. While it is still possible that a sterilized person would be able to have some kids under his care some of the time (say a neighbor ignorant of his past hires him to babysit), he would not be able to have them in his care nearly as much as if he were their parent (whether biological or adoptive) and thus the opportunities for harm would be greatly reduced.
Thank you both for your thoughtful replies; I think I understand your objections pretty well (though for the reasons I stated, I’m not convinced by them) and have enjoyed discussing them with you. I don’t really have the time to follow this thread as closely as I’d like anymore (not that I ever did), but I’ll try to reply if you have further points or questions or if you think I’ve misunderstood your responses. :smiley
piaffe, just to be completely clear… when you say “sterilization” do you mean “vasectomy”?
erisyes, for men; tubal ligation for women (did you think I meant castration/hysterectomies?). If there were an equally effective, non-surgical alternative that didn’t depend on patient compliance for its effectiveness (which to my knowledge there isn’t at this point), then the person should have that as an option.
trust me, surgury is painful. and tubal ligations generally is considered major surgury, so you’d have a different level of punishment based on the gender of the person.
You’re disagreeing w/me on level of potential danger, saying that they’re only a danger to the child in their care, therefore shouldn’t be in prison.
well, three points for ya:
-
A person can be on a probationary sentence for as long as ‘life’, which would include some one monitoring if they had custody of children.
-
If you didn’t trust them to that degree (in point #1, and you might not), then I’d go back to the 'they’re not safe to be on the streets period.
-
Even with castration you cannot be certain that some one wouldn’t be left in charge of kids - by baby sitting, being in a public place near them, adoption, marriage to some one who had kids or grand kids etc.
So, I’m right back to the “either you trust that they’re not a future danger, in which case there’s no need for the surgury, or you don’t trust that they’re not a future danger, in which case they need to be off the streets completely”.
and re the case history you noted - I see that the guy is at best a dunderhead. Doesn’t mean that he’d be a risk to children in his care, now that he’s ‘learned’ how not to handle a weapon. there’s a case in MI recently, where there was a gun in a household that had children, they put it in the oven for ‘safekeeping’ (not enough :rolleyes: in the world for that one), and some one in the household set the oven to preheat.
thereby discharging the weapon.
which then struck and killed the child.
Stupid? you bet. Criminal? Yea, I’ll even grant you that one.
Need to be sterilized 'cause they’re a future danger to all children? I think that’s a stretch. Yes, it was an extremely stupid thing to have done. But I don’t think you can make the case that that set of circumstances would be likely to occur again, thereby making them a risk.
People do stupid things all the time. and some times, those stupid things have tragic consequences (like people who try and drive over a flooded out road, and end up swept away) doesn’t mean necessarily that tragic desicions are their stock in trade.
No, piaffe, in fact I thought you meant just that, so I’m glad I was internally objecting to what you meant and not some miscontsrual of what I thought you meant.
OK. My point in asking was this: why are you only focused on them raising children? A vasectomy or tubal ligation isn’t going to cause a fundamental change in character like hormone therapies and castrations etc would, meaning that the threat they present to children is just as real as it was before the operation, no?
I guess I’m with wring here. Why even let them out?
Your comments let me speechless…
Either you think that these people are guilty and deserve to be jailed. In which case, just say so.
Either you think they don’t deserve to be jailed, and basically you’re saying that we should keep innocent people in jail because they’re certainly upset for having been unjustly sentenced and because their release could raise the unemployment statistics. Does this reasonning apply to someone who has been sentenced for say, murder, and is later proven innocent? Would it apply in a country which use to be a dictatorship and becomes a democracy : “let’s keep the former political prisonners in jail, since they’re probably upset and the unemployment is already high”.
You must choose your side : either you think drug offenders deserve jail, either you don’t. In the latter case you can’t just say : actually, they’re innocent, but it’s much more convenient for us to let them in prisons…
Nope, it turns out I don’t have to choose a side. As a matter of fact, I can argue both sides if I want. If drug offenders deserve jailtime, then the current laws need not be changed, but perhaps be made more efficient. If they do not, then letting them out tomorrow without even a way to fend for themselves poses a very serious risk, which I believe will lead to a crime epidemic, due partially to high unemployment rates. Read all of my posts in this thread and you’ll find out why I think so.
I’m touched, personally. You’re the first person I’ve left speechless on this board. 
Ack! That last post was mine!
Color me confused, but how could sterilizing someone prevent future crimes? I can’t think of a single crime that could be averted this way.
Further, in the US cruel and unusual punishments are illegal, as is punishing someone for crimes they might commit. There are good reasons for both. However visceral a thrill it would be to draw and quarter the societal menace of the week, it’s better in the long run to treat people who have committed even heinous crimes firmly, but humanely.
wring and eris,
I’m not arguing that the people present a danger to any child they might come across, just to those under their care full-time. The reason is twofold: suppose the danger is presented by their lack of judgment (i.e., they are likely to do something stupid that will hurt or kill the kid). It is more likely that an event like that will happen to a child they are parenting than to one they see on the street, visit with, or even babysit. Suppose there’s a 1 in 10 chance of something like that happening; it’s probably going to happen in 20 times, probably not going to happen in 2 or 3 times. So as I see it, while there’s a chance that the person might do something that would hurt a child they’re babysitting, it’s very much more likely that something will happen to a child they parent simply because the child is exposed to them so much more. Suppose, on the other hand, that the danger is presented by the way these people choose to discipline their kids. If they beat a child they are caring for, it’s quite likely that that child’s parents will find a new sitter. So, for that child, one beating. However, for the person’s own children, lots and lots of beatings. Furthermore, my (limited) observation suggests that people are unlikely to treat other people’s kids as badly as they might treat their own.
My point, then, is that children parented by these people face a great risk of harm, which is not faced by children who may happen to come into contact with them (or even be under their care for a short time). I’m not arguing that we can infer, from someone’s doing something stupid (such as the woman who left her kids in the car), that she’s likely to beat them (though we could probably infer this from lots of cases of child/animal abuse). However, I do think we can infer that this person just doesn’t use good judgment, and that children under her care are likely to suffer the consequences.
Regarding monitoring or parole-type alternatives: to my mind, that wouldn’t serve the purpose. The point is to prevent there being any abuse at all; while we would take away the child if its parent abused it, the fact remains that that child would already have been abused, which we could have prevented. As I see it, our duty to prevent serious harm to children takes precedence over giving the person the benefit of the doubt.
Thrasymachus, you’re missing the point, I think. I’m not suggesting sterilization as punishment for future crimes, or even crimes already committed. I’m suggesting it as the best way to prevent there being a child who suffers serious harm at the hands of these people, which I think we have a moral/ethical obligation to do (see the arguments I gave on page 1). See also the discussion between me and wring and erislover for my reasons for thinking sterilization would prevent a large number of those situations.