Sterilization and Death!

[Britney]

Would you support the sterilization of habitual criminals? Dangerous criminals? The hopelessly insane? The diseased and incurable?

Do you support the Death penalty?

Did you know that sterilization of both habitual criminals and of the mentally ill was practiced in the United States up through the mid 1970s? Even to this day, the judicial precedent allowing for sterilization of the mentally ill has yet to be over-ruled (although the law allowing sterilization of habitual criminals has).

Why do you believe sterilization of criminals has been outlawed in the United States, but the death penalty has not? Which of the two do you believe is the crueler punishment?

[Twitchmonkey]

Forced sterilization I don't like, but in some cases it may be suitable to allow them the option to be sterilized or to stay in prison.

As far as the death penalty goes, I don't like it either. It's not a moral reason, when you've done something heinous enough for that to be considered, you've voided your right to live. It's more of an economical reason; people sentenced to death cost more. With how slow the process is it's almost like giving them life and then going through the expensive execution process. Besides, life in prison is just as bad or worse.

[darkhelmet]

I don't really like violence, or inflicting pain on people, period. A definite no for sterilization... a maybe for death penalty.

[Vinya]

well it would *help* curb overpopulation, which is another problem. Thats all I'm saying in this thread.

[mastab]

Prisons are not for revenge, they are not for punishment. They are for rehabilitation. Prisoners should remain in prisons until they are rehabilitated. If they can not change, then they should stay in the prison trying to be rehabilitated the rest of their lives. Thus the life sentence. Legal murder in prisons is horrible and cruel and clearly violates the constitution. If sterilization is part of their rehabilitation and if the prisoner is willing, then it should be given.

[mastab]

twitchmonkey said:

Forced sterilization I don't like, but in some cases it may be suitable to allow them the option to be sterilized or to stay in prison.

As far as the death penalty goes, I don't like it either. It's not a moral reason, when you've done something heinous enough for that to be considered, you've voided your right to live. It's more of an economical reason; people sentenced to death cost more. With how slow the process is it's almost like giving them life and then going through the expensive execution process. Besides, life in prison is just as bad or worse.

Done something to violate the right to live by who's standards? I'm sure (most) of the prisoners think what they're doing is right. Why is your opinion above theirs?

[ExtraCheeZ]

Shoot em all and let god sort them out. Considering I dont beleive in god... well you know.

[Twitchmonkey]

mastab said:

Done something to violate the right to live by who's standards? I'm sure (most) of the prisoners think what they're doing is right. Why is your opinion above theirs?

My opinion is above everyone's opinion in my opinion. Typically I like to live in the gray area, but I sure as hell ain't no nihilist. Sometimes I decide to hold opinions not strictly based on fact, as those aren't opinions at all.

[morty14]

mastab said:

Done something to violate the right to live by who's standards? I'm sure (most) of the prisoners think what they're doing is right. Why is your opinion above theirs?

The "right to life" agruement doesn't stand up because you are only protected by that until "due process" takes it away. Which is done through the legal system. I, like Twitchmonkey, think the death sentence should be abolished. Not for some overriding moral reason or anything, just the fact that it costs too much to keep a prisoner on death row. Most death penalty convicts cost the US much more money than if they'd been given life in prison. Most die on death row, never making it to the execution. And it is more expensive to keep them on death row as compared with normal cells. When given the death sentence more appeals are made and more time and taxpayer dollars wasted on a case that has been clearly settled but because the inmate got a death sentence they will appeal and appeal and appeal until they can appeal no more. It clogs up the court system and slows everything down because of frivilous appeals made by death row prisoners. Furthermore, most of the rest of the industrized world thinks we're loons and morons for having the death penalty/ It sure would be a boost to our world standing, at least in Europe, if we abolished it. It's just economically unwise to have the death penalty in its current form.
Now, if there was a way to make the death penalty more efficent and actually ease the burden on the taxpayer, I would support it. But that is unforeseeable right now because the US is not callous enough to allow an efficent death penalty system. So, until then, end it.

[Mumble]

I don't think sterilization would do much to change the number of criminals in a society. A strong society that supports it' s members reduces crime.

While there are certain genetic disorders that could leave an individual prone to criminal acts, the majority of crime is the product of home and cultural enviroment. Sterilization just wouldn't be an effective means of reducing crime. Better social programs would have a far greater effect, and cause much less moral controversey.

[Twitchmonkey]

True, but a child being brought up in an environment with a criminal father figure is probably more likely to be drawn to the same lifestyle, and also to be abused, at least that's what would make sense to me.

[Mumble]

I think the problem is much more likely to improve if you simply aim to improve that home situation, not stop it from ever existing.

[thaddius]

In regard to the sterilization of criminals, I hold no strong opinion. As for mentally ill or those with genetic disorders, I would say it is about time. By allowing them to reproduce, we are allowing the genetic material of the human race to be contaminated by weakness and disease. By using sterilization we would bring back some element of natural selection, not to mention cutting back on population.

[Twitchmonkey]

mumble said:

I think the problem is much more likely to improve if you simply aim to improve that home situation, not stop it from ever existing.

Can't we do both.

@thaddius: That post was very Nixonesque. Good work.

[Mumble]

Sounds little a Naziesque to me. They did that after all.

I'm still not convinced. Firstly if you look at demography the populations in U.S and Canada are almost not growing. The largest increases we have are not due to birth but immigration. If you want to discuss population growth you need to consider underdeveloped countries, since that's where there is a lack of birth control and education on it.
The idea of controlling people's right to reproduce sounds kinda sketchy to me. Ever read the Crysalids? they did that, and it came off as a huge violation of people's basic human rights. I don't know if I would want to be connected with a nation that supports such practices.

[Twitchmonkey]

Well, it's a measure that would only be taken if there was reason for it, and personally I think rather than forcing it, it should be an alternative in some cases to more jail time.

[morty14]

mumble said:

Sounds little a Naziesque to me. They did that after all.

I'm still not convinced. Firstly if you look at demography the populations in U.S and Canada are almost not growing. The largest increases we have are not due to birth but immigration. If you want to discuss population growth you need to consider underdeveloped countries, since that's where there is a lack of birth control and education on it.

That's a good point, I was going to bring it up myself. Most developed countries have leveled off their birth rates and gotten close to two children per family on their own. Controlling birth rates is more of a social change thing than something that can be legislated.

As for the sterilization debate I'll take this stance on it: If it is voluntary, probably for some type of compensation for the criminal (less jail time, less probation time, less isolation, lower security prison, whatever is worked out), then it is fine, otherwise it is an attack on human rights.
Sterilization of the mentally ill/disabled is another one of those "it has to be voluntary" cases. But the new wrinkle is that they aren't able to make that decision for themselves in most cases. So I'd have to say doing it would be a violation of human rights.
Forced sterilization in any form for any person is wrong in my opinion.

[ShadowLynx]

Forced sterilization gives me thoughts on National Socialism and America's policy in the 50s and 60s...

Death's alright... Show the damn crimnals who's the boss...

[mastab]

morty14 said:

mastab said:

Done something to violate the right to live by who's standards? I'm sure (most) of the prisoners think what they're doing is right. Why is your opinion above theirs?

The "right to life" agruement doesn't stand up because you are only protected by that until "due process" takes it away. Which is done through the legal system. I, like Twitchmonkey, think the death sentence should be abolished. Not for some overriding moral reason or anything, just the fact that it costs too much to keep a prisoner on death row. Most death penalty convicts cost the US much more money than if they'd been given life in prison. Most die on death row, never making it to the execution. And it is more expensive to keep them on death row as compared with normal cells. When given the death sentence more appeals are made and more time and taxpayer dollars wasted on a case that has been clearly settled but because the inmate got a death sentence they will appeal and appeal and appeal until they can appeal no more. It clogs up the court system and slows everything down because of frivilous appeals made by death row prisoners. Furthermore, most of the rest of the industrized world thinks we're loons and morons for having the death penalty/ It sure would be a boost to our world standing, at least in Europe, if we abolished it. It's just economically unwise to have the death penalty in its current form.
Now, if there was a way to make the death penalty more efficent and actually ease the burden on the taxpayer, I would support it. But that is unforeseeable right now because the US is not callous enough to allow an efficent death penalty system. So, until then, end it.

Oh, so money is your concern, not murder? How about this. We start up the good 'ol arena and instead of having prisoners killed we tell them that if they can be victorious through ten arena battles they get the life sentence instead of a sure death. We could throw in lions, chainsaws, pickaxes... Tickets would sell like wildfire. Not only would the government save the cost of carring for them, they get money from the tickets. By your logic, it's brilliant.

[Twitchmonkey]

mastab said:

Oh, so money is your concern, not murder? How about this. We start up the good 'ol arena and instead of having prisoners killed we tell them that if they can be victorious through ten arena battles they get the life sentence instead of a sure death. We could throw in lions, chainsaws, pickaxes... Tickets would sell like wildfire. Not only would the government save the cost of carring for them, they get money from the tickets. By your logic, it's brilliant.

That sounds great. I'm sorry, but murdering murderers just doesn't weigh to heavily on my conscience. Though I do think that would constitute torture, which I'm no fan of. I don't think even murderers should be tortured, just killed.

[morty14]

mastab said:

Oh, so money is your concern, not murder? How about this. We start up the good 'ol arena and instead of having prisoners killed we tell them that if they can be victorious through ten arena battles they get the life sentence instead of a sure death. We could throw in lions, chainsaws, pickaxes... Tickets would sell like wildfire. Not only would the government save the cost of carring for them, they get money from the tickets. By your logic, it's brilliant.

There's this thing...what's it called again? Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights. I think one of those things in there explicitly banned "cruel and unusual punishment" for criminals. Jeez, not to state the obvious or anything, but it seems like your idea might be a tid bit of a breach of that, don't you think? Just a thought, in case, you know, you actually thought that document called ummm....the Constitution was still relevant.
And even if we did completely turn a blind eye to that Constitution thingy and tried your little strawman project, I think there might be just a few practical problems with it. First and foremost being the massive protests it would cause. From what I hear, there is active opposition to the death penalty as is, so I'm thinking we *might* just be attracting a bit too much attention by returning to Roman style punishment for criminals. Secondly I think the world might not take kindly to this little action. That organization commonly referred to as the "U.N." (They meet occassionally in New York City, you might have heard of them) might protest that domestic policy decision with some harsh reprecussions for our little policy change. Also organizations, with some considerable political weight, such as AI might take exception to what will become known as the "American Situation." Maybe I haven't thought this slippery slope theory through correctly though. As the creator of this ridiculous idea that you think represents my opinion, could you elaborate on how practically this works?

And you are quite the person to talk about inhuman treatments:

As for mentally ill or those with genetic disorders, I would say it is about time. By allowing them to reproduce, we are allowing the genetic material of the human race to be contaminated by weakness and disease. By using sterilization we would bring back some element of natural selection, not to mention cutting back on population.

You take exception to my thoughts on the death penalty while holding this opinion on sterilization of the mentally ill and genetically diseased. That takes some serious guts. And by guts, I mean hypocracy.
I suggest that because the Constitutional principal of due process takes away a first degree murder's right to life, it matters more about the economic situation that involves these people who have no guarunteed right to life than the moral situation, which barely exists by the way due to their planned and plotted killing of another person. You take exception to that opinion while endorsing the viewpoint that the government should begin mandatory sterilization of people who have done nothing wrong besides being born with a defect, of which they had no control over, to achieve the goals of "cleansing" humankind (a very Nazi-esque goal, congratulations on that) and population control. I am shocked and awed by your hypocracy. Firstly, when does your "cleansing" campaign end? With the mentally and genetically ill or will you continue until you have created a "master race"? Secondly, if you want to slow population growth, you should consider slowing immigration instead. Almost all of the United States' population growth is due to immigration and the families that immigrants create. The birth rate is not the problem by any stretch of the imagination.

Get off your high horse or stop spouting ignorant Nazi-esque bull.

[mastab]

morty14 said:

mastab said:

Oh, so money is your concern, not murder? How about this. We start up the good 'ol arena and instead of having prisoners killed we tell them that if they can be victorious through ten arena battles they get the life sentence instead of a sure death. We could throw in lions, chainsaws, pickaxes... Tickets would sell like wildfire. Not only would the government save the cost of carring for them, they get money from the tickets. By your logic, it's brilliant.

There's this thing...what's it called again? Oh yeah, the Bill of Rights. I think one of those things in there explicitly banned "cruel and unusual punishment" for criminals. Jeez, not to state the obvious or anything, but it seems like your idea might be a tid bit of a breach of that, don't you think? Just a thought, in case, you know, you actually thought that document called ummm....the Constitution was still relevant.
And even if we did completely turn a blind eye to that Constitution thingy and tried your little strawman project, I think there might be just a few practical problems with it. First and foremost being the massive protests it would cause. From what I hear, there is active opposition to the death penalty as is, so I'm thinking we *might* just be attracting a bit too much attention by returning to Roman style punishment for criminals. Secondly I think the world might not take kindly to this little action. That organization commonly referred to as the "U.N." (They meet occassionally in New York City, you might have heard of them) might protest that domestic policy decision with some harsh reprecussions for our little policy change. Also organizations, with some considerable political weight, such as AI might take exception to what will become known as the "American Situation." Maybe I haven't thought this slippery slope theory through correctly though. As the creator of this ridiculous idea that you think represents my opinion, could you elaborate on how practically this works?

And you are quite the person to talk about inhuman treatments:

As for mentally ill or those with genetic disorders, I would say it is about time. By allowing them to reproduce, we are allowing the genetic material of the human race to be contaminated by weakness and disease. By using sterilization we would bring back some element of natural selection, not to mention cutting back on population.

You take exception to my thoughts on the death penalty while holding this opinion on sterilization of the mentally ill and genetically diseased. That takes some serious guts. And by guts, I mean hypocracy.
I suggest that because the Constitutional principal of due process takes away a first degree murder's right to life, it matters more about the economic situation that involves these people who have no guarunteed right to life than the moral situation, which barely exists by the way due to their planned and plotted killing of another person. You take exception to that opinion while endorsing the viewpoint that the government should begin mandatory sterilization of people who have done nothing wrong besides being born with a defect, of which they had no control over, to achieve the goals of "cleansing" humankind (a very Nazi-esque goal, congratulations on that) and population control. I am shocked and awed by your hypocracy. Firstly, when does your "cleansing" campaign end? With the mentally and genetically ill or will you continue until you have created a "master race"? Secondly, if you want to slow population growth, you should consider slowing immigration instead. Almost all of the United States' population growth is due to immigration and the families that immigrants create. The birth rate is not the problem by any stretch of the imagination.

Get off your high horse or stop spouting ignorant Nazi-esque bull.

I have the number of a good sarcasm-radar mechanic if you need it.

[darkhelmet]

[Gold_skywalker]

Forced Sterilization is bad, voluntary sterilization I have no problem with.

People tend to think I'm a hard-nosed, stubborned, morally-minded person, but I'm all for contra-ceptive means, as long as it's voluntary.

[Muad'dib]

mastab said:

Prisons are not for revenge, they are not for punishment. They are for rehabilitation. Prisoners should remain in prisons until they are rehabilitated. If they can not change, then they should stay in the prison trying to be rehabilitated the rest of their lives. Thus the life sentence. Legal murder in prisons is horrible and cruel and clearly violates the constitution. If sterilization is part of their rehabilitation and if the prisoner is willing, then it should be given.

Total agreement there.