http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/vasectomy-reversal-vasovasostomy
http://www.ihr.com/infertility/male-fertility/vasectomy-reversal-cost.html

-4k-10k cost "rarely covered" +

In general, vasectomy reversal:
Leads to overall pregnancy rates of greater than 50%.
Has the greatest chance of success within 3 years of the vasectomy.
Leads to pregnancy only about 30% of the time if the reversal is done 10 years after vasectomy.

Thats really a bad idea... basically a 70% chances to sterilize yourself by accepting conditions.

nb; so once again Nexplanon is eventually good idea, but the vasectomy mueh.

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Jul 26 2017 02:10am

30 days seems pretty short for agreeing to a vasectomy if you don't already want one. But I'm fine with this, too many people are having kids.

Too many people are voting
Too many people are having kids
Too many people can drive
Too many people are allowed freedom of movement
Too many people are obliged by the state to have legal representation for taxpayer money

Or where should it end do you think?
I don't have a criminal record but I still think it's gross how we just keep being shittier to them. It should never have even reached the point where we steal their right to vote for completely arcane reasons that people still for some reason don't question.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 26 2017 04:15am

The fuck are you talking about it?

this slippery slope of damaging prisoners abilities to function in society after being released.
it started with voting, now this thing which will probably be more intensely incentivized over time before being compulsory
then presumably the next things i listed will be taken from them as well

I think it's fine as long as it's voluntary. It's not a mandate so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Keeps future pieces of shit away from my future kids so i'm cool.

just castrate them all

Vasectomy's just means your kids will not become pregnant. These fucks still have their sexual desires

To start, I like the obviously positive intent behind the idea. Unwanted children don't improve anything, and when you're functionally trying to get your life back in order you need things to be as simple as possible. Having to care for multiple people when you've shown you can't properly care for yourself is a nightmare situation.

30 days isn't an unreasonably long period of time to chip off of a sentence, so this won't be impacting people who need to be in jail for a long time due to things like murdering people. This is for people who made a relatively small mistake in life and still have a chance of functioning as productive members of society after they've repaid their debt...which is one of the things I have an issue with here.

I get that good behavior is a nice thing and that does (and should) functionally reduce sentences. It shows that people are willing to change and willing to learn from their experience apart from society. It also sets a precedent that I'm not sure I want to apply to castration.

I'm not a libertarian so I don't have a massive erection for the term "coercion", but I do find this to be coercive in a manner. People are making a major life decision when they decide to be sterilized permanently (in the case of men--yes there are procedures that can sort of undo it but they don't always take and for people who have jail time, that's a bit prohibitively expensive, so grant me this one instance of minor embellishment) and when people are in jail, they aren't always thinking with long-term interest in mind. I find this similarly problematic to things like predatory lending, with biological consequences instead of fiscal ones.

Moreover, this is supposed to be a "good behavior" action that shows people want to turn over a new leaf by making a good "adult decision" about turning their life around. I don't see this as being such a thing, necessarily. I see this as an opportunity to take a month off of your sentence in what might be a good short term decision but may have lasting impact. Prison exists as a punishment and a deterrent (and in theory a rehabilitation, but very infrequently works that way), and I think that the sentencing should mean something. I feel like those who have harmed society should serve their debt or prove they've changed (which is why I think parole is so cool & one of the best things about our prison system), and while there's a flimsy argument to be made, I don't feel that this exists as a strong punishment, a strong deterrent, or a strong indication of a change in behavior. Call it archaic or barbaric, but I think that punishments should be served, not cut short (pun intended).

Skinned also mentioned the slippery slope here, and I think that's a concern I have. Several people have mentioned body autonomy and I think that's a concern here as well. I don't see this as a eugenics issue.

So as you can see, I'm fairly split on the issue. I don't necessarily disapprove of it, but I certainly don't approve of it. I'm going to say that I'm vaguely against it, just because the thought of promoting this leaves a slimy feeling in my stomach. Gut reactions still mean something.

I really don't see what the problem is, considering it's a completely voluntary choice that the inmates simply didn't have before. If you don't agree to the vasectomy, you are in the exact same position as you would be in if this option was never offered to begin with. By not offering this option, we are simply making the choice of "No" for every inmate. I see nothing unconstitutional about asking people what they want instead of just assuming and picking for them.
I would be more interested in discussing whether the society is getting a good deal here by trading vasectomies for 30 days.