California's Prison Sterilizations

[I am lizard]

Cataclysm's pontifications boil down to a justification of extralegal action against other human beings based on what might happen and what might happen is some women in prison might have babies at some point in their lives, which would be awful. 

It's okay, because sterilization of someone isn't a big deal because it doesn't physically harm you, so it must be completely humane.

[Svata]

First of all, you really think an invasive, permanent, unreversable surgery is equivalent to being in prison?  Your sense of perspective isn't just buggered, it's non-existent.  The two are in no way equivalent.

Sterilization in no way affects someone's life significantly (or at least it shouldn't), so if anything it's not as bad as prison time. Forcing someone to go to jail is just as invasive, and the time spent there can never get back, making it just as irreversible.

Second of all, prisoners do have rights.  In fact, they should have rights.  Dehumanizing any group of people for any reason is a sign of many terrible things about the person or people doing the dehumanizing.

Throwing them in prison is more dehumanizing, since you're watching them 24/7 and keeping them away from society.

So locking someone up, with food, drink, basic cable, a library, and exrcise equpiment is less dehumanizing than mutilation of ones genetalia? Suuure...
 

Thirdly, yes, criminals can be good parents.  Does it surprise you?  It shouldn't.  All kinds of people end up criminals for one reason or another.

They can be good parents, but they shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids until they finished probation.

And finally, the biggest problem with the load of horse shit you just spewed into this thread is that the primary purpose of prison is to reform.  Keeping harmful elements out of society is a close secondary purpose.

The secondary purpose is still a purpose.

Let me ask you this - would you support prisons cutting off fingers and toes of the criminals, just because they are criminals?  Would you support them pulling kidneys out of people, leaving them with just one?  How about cutting out eyes, or breaking their eardrums, or any other such thing?

If you said "no" to any of the above, then you are a hypocrite for condoning them doing this, which is just as bad.

People need their eyes and limbs to sense things and get mobility, so it's not comparable to sterilization.

Y'know, it's time I stepped in here.

I'm a criminal.  Got the conviction and everything, back when I was 13.  I've done terrible things in my life.  Tell me, Cata, should I be/have been sterilized against my will?

You were a minor, so no. It also would depend on the severity of the crime. I don't think people who stole a candy bar should be sterilized.

How about the guy that murdered my uncle when I was 7? How about the drunk driver that killed my first girlfriend when I was 12? They deserve to not have kids?

They're violent offenders, so yes.

Who in the name of the darkness do you fucking think you are, shitstain? who are you to say that they deserve to never have kids?

You're the shitstain for saying criminals should be trusted in having children immediately after release.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that there is NO chance for rehabilitation?

Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions.

You? You seem determined to advocate everything from murder to genocide, because they committed a crime.

Lol wut?

My father had been in prison before I was born. As someone who would have never existed if you had your way, I deliver a hearty "Fuck You". In addition to that, my girfriend once told me that she was planning to kill herelf before we started dating. So in addition to depriving the world of my brilliance, you would have her death on your hands.

[Lt. Fred]

Wow, what an asshole. 2/10

[Yla]

I have no problems with this. If they don't want to be sterilized they shouldn't be committing crimes. It's no bigger a violation of their human rights than locking them in a metal cage for several months or years.

Then let's start talking when the sterilization is court-ordered. Until then, this is completely illegal.

[RavynousHunter]

I...I don't even know what to do with you, Lexi.  Your argument, such as it is, comes from such a horrifyingly broken base that any attempts to fix it would probably drive most normal people insane.  Thankfully, I'm pretty fucking abnormal, so let's get down to this shit!

First off, child, you've got a history of being a completely reprehensible twat when it comes to basic human rights.  Reproduction is a basic human right, no matter how you want to "argue" your way out of it.  You claim that they should be sterilized, a procedure which is, more times than not, permanent, for the safety and security of any children they might bear/sire.  This is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.

One, criminality is not genetic.  Two, taking a basic right for them would cause psychological damage to a person that's already dealing with or had to deal with an incredibly damaging environment.  Three, there are protections already in place to remove children from toxic environments.  Four, your "suggestion," such as it is, turns the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on its nose.

You go on to assume, with absolutely no data to back you up, that it wouldn't be invasive to sterilize an unwilling convict.  Your rhetoric is as broken, idiotic, and offensive as those who argue for forced ultrasounds on women who are going to get an abortion.  You are invading their bodies for your own social and/or political gain and some vague "good of the many" disguise that's so paper-thin, its a miracle it isn't transparent.

Let me explain it to you in baby talk, because apparently, Lexi, you can't understand real-person speak: if you make people who do bad things unable to have kids when they don't want to, that makes you a bad person.

[I am lizard]

I was wondering, but have we considered the possibility of Caty to just be showing some epic trollzor skillz?

[RavynousHunter]

Nope.  He's been like this the beginning.  Gets hung up on an incredibly bad idea, and his ego prevents others from getting into that thick skull of his.

[I am lizard]

He would make a good libertarian.

[davedan]

I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".

While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?

[rageaholic]

I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".

While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?

Only if it's forced which is the case here. 

[Witchyjoshy]

I once read a book where there was control of reproduction by the state and only the best genetics could breed, it was called "Brave New World".

While criminality may not be genetic, intelligence is. Given that the world is quickly becoming overpopulated with humans and the animals we feed ourselves with should we not be trying to make sure that the maximum number of children have the highest intelligence? Is eugenics unequivocally wrong?

When it comes at the cost of freedom and civil rights, yes.

[ironbite]

Oh I'd love it if all of us were sterile unless we reaaaaaaaally want kids.  Like super really.  And are ready.  And willing.

Ironbite-gods could you imagine how much better this world would be?

[Cataclysm]

Except having children should they choose to.  A choice that gets taken away from them.

They still can have children, just not biologically.

Gee, I dunno, let me make a life-changing and permanent decision for you, without your consent, and without your say, and let me see how well you adjust to life.

So you think we shouldn’t send criminals to prison then?

Your comparison of sterilization to the removal of limbs is completely based on emotion and the irrational value this culture places on having biological children.

Actually, by definition of the latter half of your statement, I AM showing regard for the sanctity of other human beings.  You're just spouting nonsense now.

Sure, you think children less well off then they should be, that’s so regarding

Which benefit the child, and therefore are not comparable to an invasive procedure that removes a person's bodily function without their consent at no benefit to them.

If children raised by criminals in a certain time-frame are on average worse off than children who are not, then forced sterilization would be justified, since it is beneficial to society. If they are no worse off, then it wouldn't be justified.

And it’s the same things with prisons. If criminals are as likely or less likely to commit further crimes if they aren't sent to prison, and just have to take rehabilitation classes, or go through another program, then prisons wouldn't be justified.

First off, child, you've got a history of being a completely reprehensible twat when it comes to basic human rights.  Reproduction is a basic human right, no matter how you want to "argue" your way out of it.

Raising children is a responsibility, not a right.

Four, your "suggestion," such as it is, turns the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" on its nose.

They are guilty.

You go on to assume, with absolutely no data to back you up, that it wouldn't be invasive to sterilize an unwilling convict.

My position that forced sterilization isn't any more invasive than prison time, not that's it's not invasive at all.

Your rhetoric is as broken, idiotic, and offensive as those who argue for forced ultrasounds on women who are going to get an abortion.

Except women getting the abortions they want is an inherently good thing, while leaving criminals fertile isn't. If there's statistics and studies that show otherwise, show me.

Then let's start talking when the sterilization is court-ordered. Until then, this is completely illegal.

Most of the arguments against this stem from morality instead of legality, so those are the arguments that should be addressed.

[R. U. Sirius]

Since I don't remember if you've addressed this before, and frankly I'm not inclined to wade through the wharrgble, can you tell us, Cataclysm, what specific crimes should justify sterilization? And how would you address the fact that false convictions happen when implementing this program?

Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.

BUT...and this is the biggest BUT since Fat Albert's mother's...we don't currently have any way to guarantee, beyond any possibility of doubt, that a conviction is correct; the Innocence Project shows that. Even DNA evidence can be tainted or misinterpreted or processed incorrectly; I read about one case where a man was accused of rape and the DNA evidence seemed to back it up. It turned out, however, that the lab had done the analysis incorrectly, so the mixture of the rapist's semen and the woman's vaginal mucus came up as a match to the man accused; when the tests were redone correctly, they showed clearly that the semen collected in the rape kit did not come from the man accused. A billions-to-one chance, but NOT outside the realm of possibility.

Since our justice system only calls for conviction beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond ANY POSSIBILITY of doubt, then we tacitly acknowledge the fact that the justice system makes mistakes; this is also why I'm against the death penalty. What would you recommend happen, Cataclysm, if someone wrongfully convicted were sterilized?

[I am lizard]

Just to play devil's advocate, I can see eugenics becoming an effective way to control crime because it would target the genes rather than the person; the urge to reproduce and pass our genes on is one of our strongest instincts. Many people who would happily do prison time would hesitate, at least, if they knew they ran the risk of losing their ability to have children. Any such effort would take years to show any sort of effect, though.

Well 1. There's no evidence that genes themselves cause crime.
2. Raping and torturing them would also deter crime.