Sterilization - Should it be Mandatory in some cases?

[muggle]

Henrietta brings up a good point. The crimes this woman has committed are enough to lock her away for a good long time. This country has laws and punishments on the docks for her crimes. We also have a thing called civil rights that protect even criminals, from torture and abuse. Lock her away for as long as the law allows, but don't stoop to her level by hacking up her body.

I agree abecedarian. Next they would be chopping off a hand for stealing.

 

[Miss Shelf]

On one hand, the way things are going, where life sentences are viewed as free meal tickets for life by some criminals, and the death penalty is not a deterrent, perhaps chopping off a hand now and then would put a dent in the crime rate.

On the other hand, I have to agree that perhaps sterilization could be offered as an alternative to a long jail sentence. The woman in question deserves to be locked up for a long time, but sterilization might be offered in place of five years off her sentence. Because it's a sad fact that with prison overcrowding, people who aren't deemed a serious threat to other people are released far sooner than their sentences recommend. Thus, if this woman were sentenced to 20 years, she could concievably be out in 5, unsterilized and free to go on her way to do whatever she wants.

I don't think we'd ever see a criminal situation where we'd force a woman to undergo a clitoridectomy, that isn't a good analogy at all. Men who are sexual predators are given the option of sterilization I believe, which presumably also includes removal of the testes. Sex drive, while part of our natures, isn't essential for a good life, which some of you young people just freed from parental supervision (aka college) to explore yours might not believe.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I don't agree with the above three posts (above Miss Shelf's - she got in first ). This is /not/ torture, nor is it abuse. Does that mean that any woman who goes to get this type of operation herself is torturing herself? Is it considered self-mutilation? No. It is merely an operation to stop these horrific people from having further children. They can't look after them, they abuse them, but most importantly, they don't deserve them. It's as simple as that - they don't deserve them and so I think that an operation like this as punishment is perfectly suitable.

And comparing this to cutting off a hand or performing a clitoridectomy is nonsensical. Firstly, cutting off a hand is far more crippling. That would affect a person for life, whereas tying someone's tubes is reversable, as already mentioned, and does not cripple the woman. It merely makes her unable to produce children. And as they are most probably children that she would abuse, what is the problem?

Secondly, a clitoridectomy is in no way related to the operation that would potentially be perfomed on this criminal. What would be the purpose of that? I really don't know how that in any way relates to this discussion. The women arn't punished for having sex, but for abusing the results of those encounters.

 

[muggle]

MonkeyCatcher, if the procedure is reversable, how does it prevent her from having children?

 

[Motokid]

"clitoridectomy" ???? You've got to be kidding me??? Torture???? Where are you people coming from? Ladies have this type of operation on a daily basis. Men have vasectomies too. Is that self mutilation? You are really stretching your pathetic arguement here.

I'm not talking about punishing this hideous, evil, disgusting woman (assuming she's guilty of the crimes), that's what jail is for...I'm talking about saving any future children from being brought into this world and raised under her care.

"F" her and the boat she came in on. Protect the innocent children. Born and unborn. How is this peice of trash (assuming she's guilty again) going to care for the yet unborn baby in her womb?

Muggle, the cost to reverse the tubal ligation would be the deterent. The court order that would bring charges against any doctor that would perform the procedure would stop it. This can't be reversed by accident, or through sneaky means. It's a pretty serious operation.

I was going to provide the link to the old thread I started about the man arrested, and charged with molesting 30,000 kids but the links to the cnn articles are no longer working. I would heavily agree with castration for trash of his ilk too. Just to let you know it works both ways with me. But I would go castration for the man, not just sterilization.

 

[henrietta]

The only problem with this argument is that it gets lost - the only organ that creates child abuse victims is the brain. Sterilizing rapists or women who routinely abuse their children isn't a good answer, practically or otherwise. For one thing, it doesn't take a pregnancy to put a woman in charge of children. It doesn't even take adoption or a job, which could be regulated. All it needs is a woman to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - ie, in the line of sight of some hapless idiot who needs a babysitter, and bang, you're back to the races.

 

[Motokid]

You are correct on all accounts.

The problem I have is this. If I hire her to watch my kids without checking into her background a little bit, then I am partially to blaim for what happens. If a school hired her the school is partially to blaim. If the state lets her start a day care the state is partially to blaim. She can be watched and monitered in numerous ways as far as her contact with children. What can't be watched, is her being sexually active, and whethor or not she's using birth control. Which, to date, it appears she has never even heard of.

Child abuse comes from the brain. Agree 100%
Hapless idiots. Unfortunately the world appears to be full of them.

But babies come from eggs and sperm. She's still got plenty of eggs. She's used more than she should have too. Obviously she's had plenty of access to sperm too.

I see no cruel and inhuman punishment in doing what's neccessary to make sure this female does not conceive again. An ounce of prevention is worth what?

 

[henrietta]

Obviously she's had plenty of access to sperm too.

That's interesting. How about, instead of criminizalizing pregnancy, we criminalize sex? Then issue special permits to permit people with no prior record of rape or child abuse to have at it?

 

[Motokid]

That's interesting. How about, instead of criminizalizing pregnancy, we criminalize sex? Then issue special permits to permit people with no prior record of rape or child abuse to have at it?

Now you really are at the end of your rope aren't you?

 

[henrietta]

Not at all. I just think your idea is both ineffective and creepy.

 

[Motokid]

Or, the most "effective" way to guarantee that this "creepy" female does not populate the earth any more than she already has.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Not at all. I just think your idea is both ineffective and creepy.

I would think that it would be the most effective way to stop people like her having further children that they can abuse, actually. Just how do you find it "ineffective"? And I'd like to hear your views on how this is "creepy", because personally I find people who think that it is ok that people like this women have more children that they are likely to abuse a bit "creepy" myself.

 

[abecedarian]

I would think that it would be the most effective way to stop people like her having further children that they can abuse, actually. Just how do you find it "ineffective"? And I'd like to hear your views on how this is "creepy", because personally I find people who think that it is ok that people like this women have more children that they are likely to abuse a bit "creepy" myself.

Women who are imprisoned for the remainder of their childbearing years area not nearly as likely to have more children to abuse. The penalties for these severe cases of child abuse increased per count. Let them (male or female) stay in jail longer. Enforced sterilization would only fuel the anger of these already warped individuals. If they would so horribly harm their very own flesh and blood, why would we think they'd leave other people's kids alone?
I understand the righteous anger (note, I did not say self-righteous) towards these hateful people who would harm their own children. But we are a civilization bound by law and moral ethics and we are in serious trouble if we start concocting vengful punishments for wrongdoing.

 

[G4G]

Moto asked:

"Is there ever a point when the state, or the law should force surgical sterilization on a person? Whether it be a male or female?"

Yes. If it's legal to kill people when they have murdered. then why not the above for abuse?

Moto Asked:

"Sex offender or in this case a baby factory?"

Both

Moto asked:

"Could you ever justify it mentally from where you sit?"

Hell yes. If men rape and abuse - off with their important bits. Women? Rip it all out.

It's not weird or creepy, just common sense.

 

[Miss Shelf]

Prison is not an ironclad guarantee that there will be no further pregnancies. Imprisoned women have gotten pregnant by male guards. There is always the possibility of conjugal visiting, too-and it isn't inconceivable (pardon the pun) that the conjugal visit might not be to the intended inmate. The woman would gain some public sympathy just by being pregnant and imprisoned. No, sterilization is the way to go.

 

[ruby]

The kids of the future should be born into a safe world or should i say as safe as there parents can make it for them!

 

[abecedarian]

Moto asked:

"Is there ever a point when the state, or the law should force surgical sterilization on a person? Whether it be a male or female?"

Yes. If it's legal to kill people when they have murdered. then why not the above for abuse?

Moto Asked:

"Sex offender or in this case a baby factory?"

Both

Moto asked:

"Could you ever justify it mentally from where you sit?"

Hell yes. If men rape and abuse - off with their important bits. Women? Rip it all out.

It's not weird or creepy, just common sense.

One major porblem I see with this last point: men CAN rape and abuse with their "important bits", women don't. If the person is convicted of an abusive crime, then lock them away for the rest of their natural born days. They won't be reproducing in prision, and the taxpayers won't have to supply them with painkillers as they recover from their little surgeries. And I'd like to see the data to support the use of sterilization as a means of calming a violent person.

 

[Libre]

The idea of a society in which the government has the power to sterilize is scarier than the alternative.

 

[Motokid]

I would say the government would give that power to the court and a jury of the convicted persons peers. In a sense it would be society making the call not the government.


But just so I'm clear here with what some of you think.


Are you going to tell me you think this woman should have the right to have more kids?

 

[ruby]

I would say the government would give that power to the court and a jury of the convicted persons peers. In a sense it would be society making the call not the government.


But just so I'm clear here with what some of you think.


Are you going to tell me you think this woman should have the right to have more kids?

She shouldnt have any rights to have more kids