Quote (BardOfXiix @ Jul 26 2017 06:55pm)
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 agree about the positive intent that the judge has in this case, for sure, but I do think it's a bit misguided. I agree with the ACLU that to a certain extent this is coercive because it's an offer that's being made to people who are already in a fairly dire situation and so even though the program is voluntary, it's taking advantage of this situation to reach the conclusion of the "good intent". Absolutely true that the last thing people who are in need of getting their life together would need, would be unwanted or additional children, but I can't help but shake the feeling that this "offer" isn't being made in good faith. 30 days may seem relatively short, and I say this as someone who has never been incarcerated, but I would believe that the conditions of prison are such that even the thought of having 30 days taken off your sentence would be seen as a long time and therefore quite tempting to enroll into the program.
Additionally, there's something on the societal level that I find strange, and it's that these same people who are incarcerated likely would have a way more difficult time accessing birth control like Nexplanon or a vasectomy when out of prison as compared to this program in prison. To a certain extent, I feel like society has its priorities backwards and that sex education and birth control should be made readily available to anyone who would want it out of prison. To think that people would be able to access something as a critical important as sex education and birth control in prison "more easily" than they would otherwise marks a very real issue our society is facing. That's a whole 'nother can of worms though, I suppose.
Nexplanon is one thing, as it can be fairly easily removed and a return to fertility is usually very quick. Vasectomies on the other hand are a different story, as a return to fertility is not 100% guaranteed and I worry about people electing to go into this program because, like I mentioned before, the appeal of even just 30 days shorter is probably pretty high, and they may be making this decision in haste or without long-term considerations.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.